How important are writers?

[LuckyH]

The famous novelist, Terry Pratchett, has been all over the news recently to publicise his campaign to legalise assisted suicide. He’s suffering the onset of Alzheimer’s and wants the ultimate right to end his own life, at a time of his choosing.

It made me wonder just how much influence a writer possesses because of his writing skills. Pratchett’s stories are fantasies, yet there he is on the world stage and people are listening.

Are writers that important in the wider world? And what about the weight of responsibility on our shoulders? Can our frivolous fantasies make us as important as the Pope?

[kaitie]

I think famous people, no matter what the reason, get attention. It could be Paris Hilton making the same campaign and she'd no doubt get attention as well (though perhaps for slightly different reasons). Personally, I don't necessarily think that a writer has an opinion that is more or less valuable than anyone else's based on the sheer fact that he/she is a writer. Now, the profession might lend itself to certain qualities that might help, like insight into others, etc. At the same time, reputation matters. Terry Pratchett is taken seriously and listened to because he seems to be a good man who is loved by millions. Would Stephanie Meyer or Anne Rice get the same kind of reception? I doubt it.

Anyway, I think basically that if you are someone with an important message who isn't conceited or selfish or a drama queen type of writer, and you manage to get famous via writing, it can provide a good platform. I just think it's not all that different than any other platform based on name recognition, and that it doesn't necessarily equate the person's opinion having a whole lot of validity.

That being said, I love Terry Pratchett.

[shaldna]

i think you mean SIR Terry Pratchett.

:)

But in answer to your question - it all depends. Celebrity status can help attract attention to a cause. However, it all depends what you deem a celebrity. Would I say that Terry Pratchett is the same sort of celebrity as someone like Paris Hilton? no. But in this case the important factor is that Terry Pratchett himself has alzheimers (sp?) and so is in a position where, sometime in the future, he himself may be in that situation. That sort of changes things.

But in terms of how 'important' writers are, that depends as well. Terry Pratchett may write fantasies, but they are GOOD fantasies, and anyone who has read his work knows that it's more a satirical social commentary than anything else. As a writer he is very accomplished, and has contributed a great deal. He is well known and his name is respected.

Now, if the person calling for assisted suicide laws to be changed was a Mills and Boon writer then they probably wouldn't have the same public sway.

Some writers enter social consiousness, like Terry Pratchett, Stephen King, JKR. Household names. These names give sway, help attract attention to causes and that's the main thing.

In the case of the current debate, TP is a great spokesperson, not least because of his own circumstances (there was a documentary last year that following him for the first year of his living with his illness and i reccomend everyone go and see it) but ask yourself this, would you really take the suggested reforms as seriously if it was Paris Hilton fronting them? I highly doubt it.

Writers in general are faceless names, few become 'celebrity'

[LuckyH]

I thought the Paris Hilton analogy perverse, but, based on fame, why not?

Back to a writer’s importance, Martin Amis has also stated views, about Islam, which are controversial but are also listened to because he is an acclaimed writer. I was going to say famous, but he’s nowhere near as famous as Paris Hilton.

Surely we don’t just listen to people who are famous for any reason?

Haven’t writers proved themselves by producing something thoughtful and well argued, which gives them a natural right to state their views publically on other subjects?

I find myself writing ‘short’ today with too many question marks, so I may as well finish with a cliché too. Is the pen really mightier than the sword?

[sheadakota]

I guess that would depend on your definition of important- I don't consider the pope important, but I do consider him influental.

Can writers be influental? my answer to that would be yes, absolutely.

[Momento Mori]

LuckyH: (BOLDING MINE)
It made me wonder just how much influence a writer possesses because of his writing skills. Pratchett’s stories are fantasies, yet there he is on the world stage and people are listening.

Apologies if I'm picking up on something you didn't intend, but are you suggesting that if Sir Terry wrote literature, or novels about Alzheimer's sufferers, then it would be more understandable that he should be given a hearing on the world stage, i.e. it's the fact that a fantasy writer is doing this that makes it so surprising?

LuckyH:
The famous novelist, Terry Pratchett, has been all over the news recently to publicise his campaign to legalise assisted suicide. He’s suffering the onset of Alzheimer’s and wants the ultimate right to end his own life, at a time of his choosing.

His most recent speech comes because he was invited to deliver the Richard Dimbleby Lecture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8490062.stm), under which he said that he wanted to see tribunals set up that would help enable people to end their own life. This speech has come in the context of a wider debate currently going on in the UK about assisted suicide, brought about because of one woman's conviction for murdering her son (who was in a persistent vegetative state) and the acquittal of a woman from the charge of murdering her daughter with ME.

Prior to the speech, he has sought to brought attention to Alzheimers (which he has a variation of), in particular through giving TV cameras access to the daily ramifications of the disease (which is currently only affecting him mildly) and through his campaign to increase funding for Alzheimer's research and making available drugs that can help treat it.

Sir Terry is trying to raise awareness because it's a ticking time bomb in the UK and one that the government is failing to address. He said himself in the discussion about drug availability that he can only access certain drugs because the wealth brought to him by his (excellent) novels means he can afford them, and he doesn't believe it's fair that the NHS denies them to others.

He's also being v. brave in demonstrating what Alzheimer's is about, the affects that it has on sufferers.

The media report on and publicise Sir Terry's comments and actions because he's one of the biggest selling authors in the UK. It's no different to the coverage of Joanna Lumley's campaign for the Ghurkas, the celebrities who turn out for Comic Relief and Sport Relief or the Haiti telethon or Michael J. Fox publicising Parkinson's disease.

The public are more likely to notice an issue that's been raised by a celebrity. The media are more likely to cover it. That doesn't mean that people automatically listen.

Think about George Clooney and Angeline Jolie seeking to raise awareness of Darfur. There was a huge amount of news and media coverage and yet it all quietly died away and the awful situation there persists.

Authors have just as much right to try and use their celebrity (what that may be) to bring attention to causes that are close to them. JK Rowling does so for Czech orphans and MS, Philip Pullman does so for atheism. The degree of success is difficult to measure.

LuckyH:
Martin Amis has also stated views, about Islam, which are controversial but are also listened to because he is an acclaimed writer.

Martin Amis is an example of an author who makes extreme comments when he has a book out. He doesn't campaign for euthanasia (so far as I'm aware), just like he didn't campaign for the BNP when he made his comments about Islam. There's a difference between using your celebrity to help someone else, and using it to help yourself.

Sir Terry Pratchett is a decent bloke, trying to make a difference. Martin Amis is a twat.

MM

[Raphee]

Writers vs Celebrities (like Paris Hilton); I think writers would be more influential. Obviously we are talking famous authors.
Not only do people know them, but they have a knack for words that allows them to put forward their case in better light.
Also I guess, writers do get brownie points on the intellectual scale.

That said, other media people like George Clooney, who are well respected for their work, have a wide audience, and are recognizable faces, may have an even bigger impact.
Really depends on case to case.

[Ms Hollands]

Given that there are millions of writers, I don't think it's surprising that the odd one gets to speak publicly out about something - like many other professions. I don't think categorising him as a writer in this instanse is as imporrtant as categorising him as someone successful in his field; someone respected; and someone who has a vested interested in the subject matter.

[shaldna]

. I don't think categorising him as a writer in this instanse is as imporrtant as categorising him as someone successful in his field; someone respected; and someone who has a vested interested in the subject matter.


this

[gothicangel]

Writers are supposed to be intellectuals. I don't see what genre has to do with it, fantasy writers are just as intelligent as those who write high literary.

Writers should be opening up these kind of discussions and questioning preconcieved ideas.

So yes, writers are very important.

[Jamesaritchie]

Writers can be both important and influential. Sometimes this is good, and sometimes it's bad. It depends on teh writer. Being a writer, even a very good writer, in no way means the person is terribly intelligent or terribly wise.

[LuckyH]

Apologies

Sir Terry Pratchett is a decent bloke, trying to make a difference. Martin Amis is a twat.

MM
I tend to agree with those comments, but you missed out the word pompous when describing Amis. I didn’t intend to emphasize that Pratchett writes fantasy, but merely stated it as a fact.

If we move way down the scale to ordinary writers who are not famous, but still have that certain writing ability to put a decent book together, I would argue that even an achievement at this level would mean that their opinions are worth more than those of a factory worker. (Or, does that make me as pompous as Amis?).

[Momento Mori]

LuckyH:
you missed out the word pompous when describing Amis.

Yeah, well there are several choice words I could use for Amis, but I figured AW was a family forum ... :)

LuckyH:
I didn’t intend to emphasize that Pratchett writes fantasy, but merely stated it as a fact.

Fair enough - just wanted to make sure.

LuckyH:
If we move way down the scale to ordinary writers who are not famous, but still have that certain writing ability to put a decent book together, I would argue that even an achievement at this level would mean that their opinions are worth more than those of a factory worker.

Personally I disagree. I'm not sure that any layperson's opinion on a subject is worth more than anyone else's, e.g. if a charity worker on the ground in Haiti is telling me about the situation there, then I'll put more store by their opinion than a Z-list celebrity.

MM

[CaroGirl]

I hadn't heard of Terry Prachett before I joined this site (he's completely NMS). But the old adage: The pen is mightier than the sword, definitely has truth to it.

[Jamesaritchie]

I would argue that even an achievement at this level would mean that their opinions are worth more than those of a factory worker. (Or, does that make me as pompous as Amis?).


I don't know about pompous, but I see no logic at all in this argument. Writing ability has nothing whatsoever to do with the worth of an opinion. If it did, all great writers would agree on every issue, but show me fifty great writers, and I can probably show you at least fifty-one different opinions about something.

All writign ability does is allow one to express his opinion in clearer or fancier terms. It certainly does not make his opinion right or wrong, smart or stupid.

Personally, having known a bunch of writers, and a bunch more factory workers, I'd lay eight to five on the factory worker.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Are writers that important in the wider world? And what about the weight of responsibility on our shoulders? Can our frivolous fantasies make us as important as the Pope?

My dad raised me to revere writers. That the written word was extremely important. That writers teach, expand knowledge, advance human thought.

Unfortunately, as I've grown up, I realized not everyone shares that view.

[kal-el]

I think it takes more to be a great novelist than it does to be anything else in the world. So in my opinion, a great novelist is a great influence, and a great novelist is someone of unique importance.

[RemusShepherd]

Sir Terry Pratchett is an interesting person, whom I got to meet and talk to some years ago.

He's not trying to 'make a difference', not with his written works, anyway. He is a very humble person, who constantly referred to himself as a 'hack'. He had only two goals for his stories: To entertain people and to make money. The social satire he put in his stories was there only because it tickled him to have it in there. He never meant to make a statement. I'm certain that his knighthood came as a complete surprise.

He became influential through his talent for entertaining people, and he has never, to my knowledge, tried to leverage that influence. Until possibly now. His recent campaign for assisted suicide may be an attempt to spend some of the influence he's gained in order to make the world better, or it may be simple self-interest for a humble man who wishes to die with dignity. I don't know which it is, but I don't fault him either way.

Writers can amass influence and importance through their works. There's nothing odd about that, anyone can collect social collateral by excelling in any endeavor. Writing stars are as important as sports stars or movie stars, and I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I value them even more; at least writers are adept with evaluating and relating ideas, so I trust their opinions more than a celebrity without those skills. A basketball player doesn't filter hundreds of ideas every day. A writer does. It's a good thing when they become influential.

[JeanneTGC]

Of course writers have influence. The Torah, the Bible and the Koran are all written works...and I think they've been influencing a vast number of people for thousands of years.

People have a strong tendency to believe what they read. And the stronger their reactions to what they read, the longer they'll hold onto the thoughts and feelings created.

Everyone has some sphere of influence. The more widely known the person is, the more that sphere extends.

Can a book change the world? Yes. Books have changed and continue to change the world. Therefore, their authors influenced the world with their stories.

[Topaz044]

The famous novelist, Terry Pratchett, has been all over the news recently to publicise his campaign to legalise assisted suicide. He’s suffering the onset of Alzheimer’s and wants the ultimate right to end his own life, at a time of his choosing.

It made me wonder just how much influence a writer possesses because of his writing skills. Pratchett’s stories are fantasies, yet there he is on the world stage and people are listening.

Are writers that important in the wider world? And what about the weight of responsibility on our shoulders? Can our frivolous fantasies make us as important as the Pope?

Oddly enough, I blogged about this two weeks ago.

http://tashabennett.blogspot.com/2010/01/authors-advice-brand-names.html

[LuckyH]

I don't know about pompous, but I see no logic at all in this argument. Writing ability has nothing whatsoever to do with the worth of an opinion. If it did, all great writers would agree on every issue, but show me fifty great writers, and I can probably show you at least fifty-one different opinions about something.

All writign ability does is allow one to express his opinion in clearer or fancier terms. It certainly does not make his opinion right or wrong, smart or stupid.

Personally, having known a bunch of writers, and a bunch more factory workers, I'd lay eight to five on the factory worker.

Most of the writers I know have studied their craft long and hard, and have made great sacrifices to produce their work, often locking themselves away from normal activity for long periods of time. Their acquired knowledge through their studying alone sets them far apart from the man in the street, who is quite content to merely maintain an acceptable level of knowledge for every day survival.

I hate going down this ‘superior’ road, but we are discussing whether writers have more to say than factory workers and I would argue that they do, by miles. It doesn’t make them, the writers, better people, of course it doesn’t, but it normally makes them more knowledgeable, it has to.

If anyone produces a book that sells in decent numbers, meaning that people are impressed with the writer’s ability to make them think and entertain them, then that writer deserves to be listened to – he has already proved that he’s got something valuable to say.

It takes far more than just an ability with words to write a book.

[DeleyanLee]

It made me wonder just how much influence a writer possesses because of his writing skills. Pratchett’s stories are fantasies, yet there he is on the world stage and people are listening.

Are writers that important in the wider world? And what about the weight of responsibility on our shoulders? Can our frivolous fantasies make us as important as the Pope?

Anyone can become that important in the wider world, regardless of what they do for a living or as an avocation. Look at the pilot of the "Miracle on the Hudson" jet, or the two sisters from Pennsylvania who rescued the kids from Haiti. How long that importance lasts will always vary because importance by its vary nature is illusionary and transitory. People are always as important as other people make them out to be.

That can happen to a writer, to an actor, to a jet pilot, to a nun, to anyone. So, yeah, I think that could make someone as important as the Pope (however important that is) to someone or many someones.

To me, importance and respect are two things that can never be demanded, they have to be given. Writers might be better than some at attracting the needed attention and being able to do something with it once they've got it, because their work can touch the hearts of many and create a form of empathy with them that could lend them support. However, I don't think there's a single author (actor, politician, religious figure, anyone) in the world that everyone is going to recognize and accept the importance of.

[gothicangel]

[QUOTE=kal-el;4593420]I think it takes more to be a great novelist than it does to be anything else in the world.QUOTE]

Not sure about that!

When I was younger all I was interested in was tennis. Truth is that I couldn't be arsed to put in the work required of a professional. I still play, but happy enough to represent my University.

As Stephen King said: you can turn an average writer into a good one; but not a good one into a great one.

I don't see all the time I put into writing as hard work [although it is!]; tennis asked more of me than I was willing to give.

[Hittman]

It could be Paris Hilton making the same campaign and she'd no doubt get attention as well (though perhaps for slightly different reasons).

The difference is very few people want to kill Terry Pratchet themselves.

[Jamesaritchie]

Most of the writers I know have studied their craft long and hard, and have made great sacrifices to produce their work, often locking themselves away from normal activity for long periods of time. Their acquired knowledge through their studying alone sets them far apart from the man in the street, who is quite content to merely maintain an acceptable level of knowledge for every day survival.

I hate going down this ‘superior’ road, but we are discussing whether writers have more to say than factory workers and I would argue that they do, by miles. It doesn’t make them, the writers, better people, of course it doesn’t, but it normally makes them more knowledgeable, it has to.

If anyone produces a book that sells in decent numbers, meaning that people are impressed with the writer’s ability to make them think and entertain them, then that writer deserves to be listened to – he has already proved that he’s got something valuable to say.

It takes far more than just an ability with words to write a book.

Well, no it doesn't take more than an ability with words to write a bestselling book.

And who do you listen to when two writers write books loved by millions, but then express completely opposite views? It happens often.

Knowledge and wisdom are very different things, and do not always occupy the same mind.

And I guarantee the factory worker generally knows a lot more about life, about work, about the people who really make the world go round, than a great many of the most well known and widely read writers out there.

Locking yourself away and struugling to perfect your writing doesn't make you more knowledgeable, and certainly doesn;t make you wiser. It's more likely to make you less so. You may have a head packed full of facts and figures garnered from research, but you gain real knowledge an dreal wisdom by living life outside a locked room. Good writers shut themsleves away only to express what they, if they're very lucky, learned out in the world before going into the room.

[MAP]

I think it takes more to be a great novelist than it does to be anything else in the world.


What?

It takes more to be a great novelist then to be a great leader, doctor, scientist, dancer, or artist?

To be great at anything takes a tremendous effort.

[Albannach]

They can bring attention to an existing issue which is what that is. I don't think they can change attitudes most of the time.

[The Lonely One]

The famous novelist, Terry Pratchett, has been all over the news recently to publicise his campaign to legalise assisted suicide. He’s suffering the onset of Alzheimer’s and wants the ultimate right to end his own life, at a time of his choosing.

It made me wonder just how much influence a writer possesses because of his writing skills. Pratchett’s stories are fantasies, yet there he is on the world stage and people are listening.

Are writers that important in the wider world? And what about the weight of responsibility on our shoulders? Can our frivolous fantasies make us as important as the Pope?

I feel writers used to enjoy a wider stage of importance and a platform for reform and such things than they do today, as attention spans seem to wane and writing/reading comes second to many youths next to i-phones and other instant media devices.

For instance look at the importance of African-American writers and scholars to the advancement of the race following the Abolishment of the American slavery system and up into contemporary times. Look at writers like W.E.B. DuBois, Frederick Douglass, Toni Morrison (to name a more recent one).

As for most contemporary fictionists, I don't feel we're being looked at as scholarly sages of our times. But I do feel if we have a platform and believe in something, most of us would use it to achieve that ends. Is assisted suicide being legalized a noble cause? I don't know. Would Pratchett be pushing for this cause if not by selfish reasons? I doubt it. I see it like the elderly woman who forms a neighborhood watch because her home was broken into; she didn't give a crap about her neighbors before, but expects them now to pity her plight. But we must each look to our own moral codes to judge how we feel. I completely support and encourage free speech, and if one has the opportunity to shout what they believe more loudly, then by all means do it. As I said, it's up to us to be intelligent and choose who to listen to.

[BrokenSword]

I'm not a regular poster and I'm not trying to create flames, but I do lurk and read. This thread and the one which asks 'which would you rather have: critical or commercial success?' made me think. In the latter, I felt the overwhelming majority, probably 90%+ would rather have the commercial, meaning that they'd target money as the reason they would rather write. In this one, I hear a different voice. That is, I gather that most want writers to have a position in the world, and indeed, some feel it is that way. I think it used to be such but no longer and a huge reason is because of the goal in thread #1.

That is, I find it odd that the majority want to be heard re importance and influence yet would aim their words toward making money versus influential writing via critical success. At least, that is my take.

Anyway, I find it interesting. Maybe this adds to the discussion? I'd like to think so.


Michael

[LuckyH]

I find the last few posts extremely thoughtful ones, commenting that writers want their opinions read and to be paid for them too, teetering between the choices at times.

Having gone down the commercial route, or stumbling across success by accident, does it make the writer’s voice any more important?

Here’s a personal example from a pebble on the beach, hopefully not a conceited one: I have regularly attended class reunions in the past where we meet up to compare notes on our lives since sitting in the same classroom.

Some of us have travelled a bit since that time, and a very few have written something about our journey. The travellers and writers are regularly asked to speak of their experiences and people want to hear what they say.

Entering dangerous waters, I have to say that those who have stayed behind listen gratefully, but have little of their own to contribute.

(I sometimes consider the ones that stayed behind to be the lucky ones).

(They’ve never had rejection letters).

[Sophia]

This thread and the one which asks 'which would you rather have: critical or commercial success?' made me think. In the latter, I felt the overwhelming majority, probably 90%+ would rather have the commercial, meaning that they'd target money as the reason they would rather write. In this one, I hear a different voice. That is, I gather that most want writers to have a position in the world, and indeed, some feel it is that way. I think it used to be such but no longer and a huge reason is because of the goal in thread #1.

That is, I find it odd that the majority want to be heard re importance and influence yet would aim their words toward making money versus influential writing via critical success. At least, that is my take.

It is interesting, but it assumes that being influential can only come about through critical success. Why should that be so? One of the reasons commercial success is appealing is because it means that a lot of people have wanted to read what the author has written. Critical success to some people means that only a very few people have wanted to read their work. In the past, those few people may have had more influence than their number might warrant, but I'm not sure if that is the case now. So I think that someone can have commercial success as a goal, and also want their voices to have worth, without there being any inherent conflict. Whether they achieve both or not depends on other factors, as discussed upthread.

[NYCutie]

hmm interesting...

[gothicangel]

[QUOTE=ElaraSophia;4595916 Critical success to some people means that only a very few people have wanted to read their work. [/QUOTE]

Then why not just publish through Lulu?

Sorry I want critical success and have a fan base to rival JK Rowling and Stephen King. :D

Unless you're going for the misunderstood genius, then such small sales which wouldn't even register on a critics radar.

I don't think the publisher would be too impressed either. :D

[Sophia]

Then why not just publish through Lulu?

Sorry I want critical success and have a fan base to rival JK Rowling and Stephen King. :D

Unless you're going for the misunderstood genius, then such small sales which wouldn't even register on a critics radar.

I don't think the publisher would be too impressed either. :D


I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your post. Haven't had enough coffee! :)

What I meant in the line you quoted was that the impression I had got was that some of the people who say they prefer commercial success to critical success appear to equate critical success with very narrow appeal.

I didn't mean that people who want critical success only want a few people to read their work. My phrasing was poor.

[shaldna]

I'm not a regular poster and I'm not trying to create flames, but I do lurk and read. This thread and the one which asks 'which would you rather have: critical or commercial success?' made me think. In the latter, I felt the overwhelming majority, probably 90%+ would rather have the commercial, meaning that they'd target money as the reason they would rather write. In this one, I hear a different voice. That is, I gather that most want writers to have a position in the world, and indeed, some feel it is that way. I think it used to be such but no longer and a huge reason is because of the goal in thread #1.

That is, I find it odd that the majority want to be heard re importance and influence yet would aim their words toward making money versus influential writing via critical success. At least, that is my take.

Anyway, I find it interesting. Maybe this adds to the discussion? I'd like to think so.


Michael


this is an interesting point.

I feel, and I may be in the minority, that I would rather have commercial sucess than critical. Mainly because winning awards won't pay the rent.

That said, in terms of this particular post I find it interesting when considering the position of 'the writer' in the world.

As I said above, I think it all depends on your unique position. In this case Sir Terry's campaign is effefective because he himself has the disease.

Writers, like anyone I suppose, have pet projects and things they care about outside of writing. There are alot of people who want to make a difference, and I suppose using their influence is one way to attract attention to thier individual causes.

[gothicangel]

I feel, and I may be in the minority, that I would rather have commercial sucess than critical. Mainly because winning awards won't pay the rent.


Depends on the award!

The Costa Award [formerly Whitbread] is worth £20,000.

The Booker Prize is worth £50,000

The Northern Rock Award [North East England] New Writers Award is worth £25,000.

[gothicangel]

On the other hand, the average author advance won't pay the bills. :D

[Jamesaritchie]

Some of us have travelled a bit since that time, and a very few have written something about our journey. The travellers and writers are regularly asked to speak of their experiences and people want to hear what they say.

Entering dangerous waters, I have to say that those who have stayed behind listen gratefully, but have little of their own to contribute.

(I sometimes consider the ones that stayed behind to be the lucky ones).

(They’ve never had rejection letters).

Maybe it's the ones who stayed behind who should be asked to speak about their experiences? I think there is the notion that "those who stay behind have little to contribute," but it's funny that they're the ones we tend to write about.

We travel five thusand miles to write about people in another country, often without realizing that those very people we meet and write about are also the ones who stayed behind, which is why we had to travel five thousand miles to write about them.

It's the notion that those who stayed behind have little to contribute that bothers me. They're the very ones who have everything to contribute. They're the ones, if we're smart, that we travel around to meet, to get to know, to write about.

[LuckyH]

Maybe it's the ones who stayed behind who should be asked to speak about their experiences? I think there is the notion that "those who stay behind have little to contribute," but it's funny that they're the ones we tend to write about.

We travel five thusand miles to write about people in another country, often without realizing that those very people we meet and write about are also the ones who stayed behind, which is why we had to travel five thousand miles to write about them.

It's the notion that those who stayed behind have little to contribute that bothers me. They're the very ones who have everything to contribute. They're the ones, if we're smart, that we travel around to meet, to get to know, to write about.

I take your point, and mine was somewhat metaphorical, but to plod on another few yards.

One of my classmates who has never moved from his small town, and never wanted to, once asked me briefly why I had done all that travelling. I knew that he wasn’t interested in all those foreign places, but I tried and started to tell him about a recent visit to Las Vegas.

He stopped me, touched my arm, and I could see that he had moist eyes.

“I’m so sorry you’ve had to endure all that,” was what he said.

I’m writing about him now, here, and in my latest novel.

[Arkie]

I figure celebrity writers put their britches on one leg at a time just like I do, the basic difference is they can afford a better brand of britches.