John Scalzi and privilege

Dear John Scalzi:

When I first read your "privilege" comment on my post about professional rates for short stories, so many responses popped to mind. I thought about pointing out I was unable to respond until now because I've been working all day to support my family, which meant I didn't have the privilege of an immediate answer. Or that of course $250 is better than $100--especially on my family's tight budget--but sometimes people defer short-term gain so we can reach our long-term goals.

And most importantly that yes, I am privileged, as is anyone with a full-time job these days. But that you are also privileged to have worked your way to such writing success that you can draw a line in the ink and say below this cash point, I will not publish.

But I don't have to respond with any of that because of Jeff VanderMeer's amazing comment (pan through the comments section to find it), which to me is the final word on all this. He described so perfectly the reasons and strategies which cause writers to submit to different publications. So please read Jeff's words. And let me simply add a small "Hell yeah, Jeff! Wish I'd said that!"

Yours in privilege,

Jason Sanford

Comments

[John Scalzi]

Dear Jason:

If Jeff's discussion really was the final word, then you shouldn't have then added a response to me after that, because I responded to that, over in the thread.

I did read Jeff's response, which I found interesting, but his response is not in fact what *you* said, to me. I think you need to own your own arguments, and your own words.

Also, posting an open letter to me in which you offer up all sorts of responses regarding your argument from privilege but then say "but I don't have to respond with any of that" is, you know. Silly.

[Jason Sanford]

If I didn't own my own words, I wouldn't have put my name on them. And no, Jeff's response wasn't what I said. What I said focused on one narrow issue, which is how people in this argument--including yourself--have focused excessively on monetary compensation when what is considered the bottom end of pro compensation is laughably low. I simply said there's much more to consider than 5 cents a word. However, I barely touched on what that much more was. Jeff, to his credit, did.

On Jeff's blog, you said "the functional difference between $100 and $250 is actually rather profound and measurable." Really? I never realized this. When I went into debt a few weeks back trying to cover a few hundred dollars for the emergency room, I didn't say "Gee, a few hundred is nothing to a privileged guy like me." Instead, I wondered how we were going to pay off this charge on my credit card.

But that doesn't change the fact that 5 cents a word is still an extremely low rate to be considered a professional payment.

Finally, I do think Jeff's words are a fitting close to this entire debate--meaning the greater rate fail debate , not merely whether or not 5 cents a word is a low professional rate. But that said, the reason I also posted here and after Jeff's comment is because I wanted to address your suggestion that I didn't know the value of money. That I didn't know how people scrap and hurt to earn an extra hundred dollars. That I didn't know that's a week's groceries or a dental visit. Please.

You're a great writer and a great advocate for other writers. But please don't make assumptions about others simply because they disagreed with you on one aspect of an argument.

[John Scalzi]

"I wanted to address your suggestion that I didn't know the value of money."

Well, Jason, when you present an argument which explicitly states "why quibble over whether a story earns $100 or $250?" what are you expecting? You are asserting without any ambiguity that the variance between those two payments is not really arguing about and that instead people should focus on other criteria. To be entirely blunt about it, I find this argument to be appalling, which is why I focused on it and called you out on it. Telling people *not* to quibble about their payment, or to consider it highly relevant when evaluating markets, is just plain bad advice. That you've managed to somehow conflate this argument in your brain with your "5 cents a word is not a real pro rate" argument is immaterial to this point; one does not logically lead to the other.

You wish to assert that your "why quibble" argument is not based on privileged assumptions. Fine: explain how it's not. Because I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone who can argue straight-faced that the difference between $100 and $250 is not worth the quibble does not in fact come into the argument with a suitcase full of assumptions regarding the value and utility of money -- regardless of what his own personal financial situation might be. I'm perfectly willing to believe you may not be *aware* of the suitcase of privilege you're hauling about, which is why when I first noted it, I fronted it with "whether you're aware of this or not." It's also clear being accused of privilege is something that stings you, but that's your karma. From where I'm standing, your argument is loaded with a lot of interesting assumptions. I calls 'em as I see 'em, and this is what I see.

And to note your point, why, yes, I myself am privileged when it comes to writing, very much so. However, I'm not the one suggesting to other writers that they not quibble about the difference between $100 and $250, so my own suitcase of privilege is not the one needing to be unpacked at the moment.

[Jason Sanford]

Ever heard of crabs in a bucket? Where the crabs climb all over each other, pulling each other down so none can escape? This is a similar situation. When you are working for exploitative wages, a minor bump in pay--to something that is still exploitative--doesn't change the fact that you're being exploited. If that's that case, then consider other factors on why you're working for these wages. Maybe what you're doing will pay off in the long run in different ways, and help your jump out of the bucket.

That's my point, and it's not privilege to point that out.

I expanded on this more at VanderMeer's site. Got to go to work now. Family to support and all that.

[David Alton Dodd]

Jason:

Scalzi isn't going to get it. It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate him. He does reach out, sometimes nicely, other times like a bastard. As do we all, I reckon. But I agree with you, totally. I am in the same damned crab bucket.

It's funny, I don't read speculative fiction, I haven't in decades, although I have a library of paperbacks that would surprise a lot of my friends that don't know any better. I've never read Scalzi. I hear he's good. I like following weblogs of writers of speculative fiction because they are more apt to cut to the chase about this writing business. I appreciate your words on Vander Meer's site very much, I just wanted to let you know. We take what we can get because we have to. Life sucks, but we love what we do.