I see that film writer Anthony Kaufman has invoked my name in a blog post in which he presents his own personal perspective about how it's hard out there for a film writer. "I have to wonder what folks like Glenn Kenny, Michael Atkinson, Rob Nelson, David Ansen, Desson Thomson, et.al. do for money nowadays?"
I'm somehow reminded of an anecdote from my days fronting a rock band in the early '80s. Our bass player, Doug, was one of our biggest overall boosters, and one night he went to Maxwell's in Hoboken to see Flipper (of "Sex Bomb" semi-fame), hoping they would allow him to present them with one of our demo tapes. Seeing one of the band's members hanging out by the entrance to the basement that served (still does, in fact) as an ad hoc dressing room, he cheerfully asked the musician, "Hey, what are you guys doing after the show?" To which the Flipper member responded, "NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!"
Ha ha. I keed, I keed. Sort of. And while I wish that in my case the answer to Mr. Kaufman's question was something along the lines of "I am Elmer Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht," or, "I live off off the inherited wealth of My Lovely Wife," well, neither happens to be the case. I earn some money writing, but I make my actual nut doing something else, and if I'm loath to discuss the details of the arrangement with those I'm not intimate with, it's for what I consider good reason: Yeah, I'm a little protective about the gig, and yeah, it's none of anybody's business, fucking or otherwise.
And the thing is, nobody really cares. I mean, you guys care, to the extent that you enjoy this blog and are entertained by it and want to see it continue, but part of the reason this blog is enjoyable, I presume, is because it's not about my problems. I know there are a bunch of people who have done pretty well by blogging about their problems—for my money, Ann Althouse is a prime example, although I don't think she necessarily sees it quite that way—but I myself got that kind of thing out of my system back when I was at the William Paterson College Beacon. Sure, I write from a personal perspective and I put up some personally related stuff here, but it's all intended to at least entertain. I'm not really into "sharing."
"I don't talk about money," a well-off friend of mine—one of the smartest, and wisest, people I know— once said to someone who was writing a profile of him. I think that's a good tack.
There are plenty of people who love to be all up in your business, no matter whether you're a net celebrity or next door neighbor. Me, I don't even tell anyone where I live let alone what I do, unless I consider them a close acquaintance or friend. I also don't care about anyone else's business, except for what they're known for. It makes me uncomfortable to be told about intimate details from people I barely know (it's happened so often to me from women, that Althouse syndrome ought to be put in the DSM IV). I've found two ways of dealing with being pried into by an interlocutor, either I clam up and change the subject, or I lie outrageously with a straight face. Both work, but one's more fun.
Posted by: papa zita | July 12, 2009 at 02:01 PM
Glenn-good to see you invoke the William Paterson College Beacon. We had more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Posted by: Diane Rainey | July 12, 2009 at 04:32 PM
Why not get some banner ads on this site for some extra scratch? I mean, not a whole lot so the site is infested, but just a few? I'm sure your loyal readers wouldn't mind and would click on them to help every once in a while. I know you want to keep your personal blog free of those things, but it would be a minimal annoyance for a little extra.
Posted by: Dean | July 12, 2009 at 07:15 PM
Obviously you don't live off the inherited wealth of your wife, since as those who know me best are aware, the bulk of my wealth is divided between the care and development of my Madame Alexander Doll Collection, and building my myna bird preserve. Though of course I do hope there will be enough left over to send our daughters to finishing school.
Posted by: Claire K. | July 12, 2009 at 07:18 PM
Not to belittle critics struggling to make a living out there, but I don't know anyone in any field who is thriving in this economy. And most of them don't have a forum to say why their current situation sucks so much.
Also, working as a freelancer in a different field myself, the last thing I'd ever want to see another freelancer do is make the current rates as public as Kaufman does in his post. The only people who should know your rates are you and those who are looking to hire you. Anybody else? It's none of their business.
Posted by: Steven Santos | July 12, 2009 at 07:26 PM
Nice to see Mrs. K has a way with words too Glenn!
Posted by: markj | July 12, 2009 at 07:30 PM
@ markj: Indeed, she is Clever as well as Lovely!
@Steven Santos:My reflexive sarcasm aside, I don't mean to rag on A.K, o'ermuch. I like and respect him and his work, and have sympathy/empathy for his circumstance. But I agree: it's dubious form, not to mention dubious professional strategy, to air such info in a public forum. The circumstances for us guys are parlous, and not likely to get any better soon, and one can already see the "we're all in this together" collegiality that marked the beginning of the current crisis curdling into an "every man for himself" ethos. Understandably. But some of the manifestations I've seen of it are ugly, and I'm reasonably confident that they will get uglier.
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | July 12, 2009 at 09:48 PM
@Glenn: I understand what you're talking about regarding the "every man for himself" ethos, unfortunately. I think Kaufman is a good writer as well and wish every good film writer can find work, but he needs to be more careful about what he airs in public, as it doesn't help anyone, especially himself. As you mentioned in your post, a little too much "sharing" on his part.
Posted by: Steven Santos | July 13, 2009 at 05:47 AM
I disagree with the way Kaufman's post is being characterized. I don't think it was presented in the spirit of personal disclosure or TMI whining so much as it was operating from a more socialist perspective on things -- that economic struggles are systemic rather than representative of personal failure. What's more, refraining from talking about money problems, due to the social code that it's bad manners to do so, only serves to maintain the grip of capital, since keeping silent means that those very systemic problems will remain invisible, and will continue to be felt, materially as well as psychologically, as purely individual crises, brought about by one's own inability to rise in an ostensibly objective meritocracy.
Now, socialism and fraternal struggle is not the world we live in, but it's not a naive perspective from which to forge an argument, either, since that's part of how one brings about the shift in consciousness one hopes to see. Ideological shifts require positive speech acts in the desired direction.
Posted by: msic | July 13, 2009 at 08:53 AM
@mslc: Wow. I don't even know where to start in terms of answering that. Which you ought to take as a compliment. I do understand that the attitude I cite apropos talking about money is intractably bourgeois; hence, perhaps I am intractably bourgeois. Whatever it is I am, I have worked and invested a great deal to get that way.
Oh, but I mustn't work to maintain the "grip of capital," no, no no. After all, YOU'VE got my back, don't you, Mike?
No, I didn't think so. Still, so long as my consciousness shifts...
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | July 13, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I'm going to start a band called "Positive Speech Acts".
Posted by: bill | July 13, 2009 at 11:03 AM
@ bill: Gee, I was hoping you'd comment on what appears to be my nascent conservatism...
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | July 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
@msic
Either you approach this from a perspective vastly different from my own, or you're yanking our collective chain with subtlety and skill.
If the latter, I heartily approve.
Anyway, to be honest to our host, asking you what you do for a living just seems so utterly tacky. I mean, I assumed as of right now that writing on film is, alas, your side gig. But beyond that, it's a bit, how do you say, nosy, at least by my lights.
Posted by: Dan | July 13, 2009 at 02:20 PM
Damn, the next time I reply, I should read the article.
I won't go into revealing any rates from MY freelance gigs. Well, I can reveal one, because it's public knowledge: Cracked.com pays $50 flat for an article. Land the top 10 for the month, that's another $50. It's not get-rich money, but back at the beginning of the year, when times were a little tough for me, Cracked checks helped keep the lights on and the credit cards paid off.
The real payment is in exposure. My most recent article ran last week, and it's still racking up views (the curious can see it here: http://www.cracked.com/article_17546_7-classic-star-wars-characters-who-totally-dropped-ball.html). And honestly, that opens doors. One of which I've gone through and that I can't discuss yet (and honestly this isn't the Dan Show, I've done quite enough self-promotion already).
I think the future of writing is, in a lot of ways, the side gig. I don't know if that's good or bad (I can see upsides and downsides), but that's the way it's heading.
Posted by: Dan | July 13, 2009 at 02:43 PM
@Glenn - I have a lot more on my mind than just that, you know (such as fake band names)! I'm a man of many colors.
Posted by: bill | July 13, 2009 at 04:01 PM
Well, um, let's just say I stumbled into the wrong conversation, and it won't happen again. But despite what's really a pretty minor disagreement, I do have yr back 99% of the time, Glenn. I mean Christ, man. Yer the frackin' Erotic Connoisseur. [Bows arms in Wayne and Garth supplication gesture.] I'm not worthy! (Tell me you ad-libbed the Schoenberg joke....That owned.)
Cheers.
Posted by: msic | July 14, 2009 at 01:23 AM
@msic: Don't feel chased away, sir. Despite the feistiness of some of the responses, I want to be clear that I'm not ideologically opposed to the spirit of your pronouncements. It can be bracing, however, to test one's own progressive philosophy against conditions on the ground as it were. The question is, when push comes to shove, how much do one's beliefs get put aside for pragmatism's—or survival's—sake? Still, you have a point, although not quite the one you intended—it's a conversation that this site isn't necessarily built for.
Thanks for the kudos. Yeah, the Schoenberg joke was mine—what else was I gonna do with that piano? I thought Cecil Taylor at first, but figured Arnold to be a little more "accessible."
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | July 14, 2009 at 09:48 AM
Quoting Glenn: "It can be bracing, however, to test one's own progressive philosophy against conditions on the ground as it were."
...
Or maybe many just aren't that progressive after all... Anthony's question seemed sincere. @misc is right on the money.
Posted by: Joe C | July 17, 2009 at 01:39 AM
And what's sincerity got to do with the price of eggs?
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | July 17, 2009 at 07:21 AM