I have a problem with talking about your publication records using the term "credits." I see it fairly frequently in literary journals bios:
"Her publication credits include Granta and Paris Review."
The term "credit" is an financial one. Credits are given and received in an "economy" — by which I mean any system of exchange and trade.
Since "credits" are as interchangeable as quarters and bills, it implies that these stories — these pieces of art — are essentially interchangeable. The value is not in their essence, but in their place of publication. The value is also in the extent to which they aid the writer's ascent up the career ladder.
This word usage might be more common in the linguistic repertoire of professors, because academia trains writers to think about publications in terms of discrete chunks that will propel them toward tenure. 1 Review + 2 Stories = One step up from level 2 associate prof to level 3 associate prof. The quality of the story doesn't matter per se. Tenure often works on the logic of math, not art.
This is a dangerous road to travel. Art is not career building. A story is not interchangeable with other stories. Writer's shouldn't traffic in credits but in the reality of their characters and in a belief in the power of fiction.
I make these claims despite knowing that I've been guilty of using this type of language. So I'm throwing a stone, yes, but also simultaneously reprimanding myself. Ultimately, writers need to be wary of the connotations of the words used even in their bios. It's easy to slip into a type of language usage that relegates writers as cogs in a vast system, judged solely by the yardstick of efficiency, and valued by their production value.
We do not have credits. Instead, we have published stories. Our fiction has appeared or is forthcoming. We have placed our work in these places. We have entrusted our literary hearts into these frail bound bi-annuals in the hope that they might touch someone else, and if they touch someone, regardless of perceived prestige, then they have mattered.
9 comments
Interesting thought, though my guess is that the proliferation of “credit” language into writer resumes is probably more related to the TV/film industry than to the academy. I have never heard a professor speak in these terms, though that’s just my experience.
Talk to an aspiring screenwriter though….
That’s a good point, Skip. After all, I do live in Los Angeles.
But I wonder whether some writers at least think in terms of “credits,” in terms of constructing a career using the building blocks of lit journals rather than just publishing good material.
I haven’t run across that phrasing and I live in NYC, the epi-center of poetry career building. I don’t begrudge anyone who tries to pay their rent–even by way of academia, but I agree that it is an odd term.
Why not (quoting my “When the Sun Sets Like a Nice Salmon Mousse”), *she has work in South Dakota Lit, North Dakota Letters and The Dakota Fanning Review, along with its web presence, dakotafanningreview.blogspot.com.*
The above (“When the Sun Sets Like a Nice Salmon Mousse”) is posted at
https://my3000lovingarms.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-sun-sets-like-nice-salmon-mousse.html
and offered a sample submission letter gone mad.
I don’t care for it myself but I can see how the word so easily came to mean books you’ve got on the shelf instead of imaginary money.
Wait.
It’s starting to make a little more sense now. . .
“We have entrusted our literary hearts into these frail bound bi-annuals in the hope that they might touch someone else, and if they touch someone, regardless of perceived prestige, then they have mattered.”
I really appreciate this.
Economics or a market system and art have always been complimentary, so I will have to support use of the word credits as you’ve described. Fear of commercialism seems a fairly recent phenomenon of the past 50 years or so. Unfortunately this seems to have been generalized to a fear of economics within writing or art in general.
The concern writers should have is commercialism in the sense of losing one’s voice in the crowd. This is the McDonaldization or Disneyfication of writing. This is a real danger of writing programs or following a single author too closely. New writers face this, but a greater pressure exists for developing writers, as one moves from a local to national to global audience. As long as a writer is aware of this pitfall and maintains an open mind and a wide range of resources, this can be avoided.
The other aspect of economics is market value. Academics artificially separates economics from sociology, perhaps to make the subject matter more manageable, but these are one and the same. Economics cannot be properly understood apart from society, nor can society be properly understood apart from economics. Because writing (art) is a cultural artifact of any given society, this implies that economics is tacitly involved in writing (art).
From a historical perspective, fiction owes its debt to the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. The Renaissance was a result of nobles wanting souvenirs of their travels. This created patronage of artists who provided those. The African continent and the New World brought back journals of adventure to Europe. These morphed into travelogues and became extremely popular. Eventually writers exaggerated these tales until the point of inventing them completely. Fiction had been around long before, but this form or writing genre was fresh and exciting and resulted in our first recognized novel: The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha by Cervantes.
The noble patrons first introduced artists to the patrons’ homelands. It was they who gave credit to the artists whose work they honored in their estate. Today, because of technology and advances in mass communication, the nobles, though some still exist in the form of celebrities, have been mostly replaced for the writer by publishing houses.
People have a tendency to anthropomorphize everything. Art itself does not have some mystic quality; it is not a pseudo-science or pseudo-religion. Art is an extension of people; it is from those people that can be found the humanism. Art, and therefore writing, is a product of people, and as such, can be assigned a monetary value. We can argue about degree of monetary value, but this does not change its nature.
Writing without economics is a book that nobody will read. Can art be art without an audience? I argue no. Art is a form of communication that does not become fully actualized until it is received by some form of audience. Whether the audience pays for the work in currency or by simply trading their valuable time, an economic transaction always occurs between artist and audience. An argument might be made that the true value of a given work is based on the number of transactions rather than the currency value of any given transaction.
Artists, writers in this case, should embrace economics. They are not selling out as is cliché to state; they are transacting with an audience, and thereby, being forced to grow as an artist.
Greg, I would agree with you in that you can’t completely wipe away all economic elements from art.
But I think that when you treat art as merely commercial, then the true function of art is lost. The end goal of art is to illuminate human beings in social, emotional, philosophical and spiritual ways.
RE: Paragraph 3: Even if we can’t understand art without paying attention to economic realities, that doesn’t mean the artist should be concentrating on translating his artistic process into economic terms. It means someone from the outside can take all these things into account. From the artist POV, though, I don’t think that economics should be the primary lens.
RE: Paragraph 6: I disagree: I think art does have a mystic quality. It has played a role beyond reason in my life. Of course it can be assigned a monetary value, and it’s inevitable that it’s assigned a monetary value, but the language of artists should not exalt that monetary value.
Look, if I can summarize the gist of your arguments, you say: “Because economics is deeply intertwined with art, we should not be fearful of the language of economics when discussing art.”
I think that’s a type of non-sequitor. I can agree that economics is deeply intertwined with art, and that yes, “economic transactions” happen, but that idea doesn’t lead to the notion that we should allow economic language to rule our art. We need to be wary of that language, because if it represents the primary way we think of art, we’re misconceiving the function of art.
I think we are in agreement that art has an economic element and this element should not be (or at least doesn’t have to be) a primary focus of the artist. What I am stating is that when an artist fears this economic element, then it defaults to a significant element. The simple response to your original thought is that the word “credits” is an economic element, but don’t worry or focus on it. It’s ok because it’s part of that economic or cultural tradition that follows art.
P3: We are also in agreement. I don’t think artists need focus on economics. We do when we consider audience, which we should. We do when we consider language. And so forth. Economics is always there in the background. Unless you are an economist though, it is probably best left in the background. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And again my point is to not be afraid of it if it occasionally pops up its head.
P6: We part ways on perspective or belief system and that’s ok. Makes life interesting. For me there is no mysticism, the magic is in the excellence found in all of us.
My argument would be a non-sequitor if I stated, “Because economics is deeply intertwined with art, therefore bear!” I would have left off “…when discussing art.” I would only state that artist should not be afraid of economics, they don’t have to talk about it directly, but it will occasionally come up if you make a career out of it, or at least try to pay some bills with the result of your work.
Basically, as long as you are “true to your art” (whatever that means to you, mystically or logically), don’t worry about money and the language of money (e.g., “credits”) when it comes up because it has always coexisted with society and therefore art.
Now that said. If you want to devote as much of your time as possible to your art, then definately economics, while not the prime focus, demands considerable focus.
Thanks for the great discussion, I’m delighted to have discovered your blog.