Yawn. When will we ever get an actual programme for writers?

Stephen, what's your definition of an actual programme for writers?

Hello Chris. The problem is, TV shows about books are rarely actually about writers and writing. They are typically superficial fluff and are little more than book reviews with pictures.

This new show sounds like it will go down the same path to oblivion ... to quote C. Hogg: "making it as entertaining as it is informative, celebrating reading as much as writing." The "changeable panel of book-lovers" also worries me.

The problem is perspective. These programmes largely cater for the book buyer rather than the ones who write them.

I'm a writer. I want a programme exclusively ABOUT writing (and dealt with in more than just a passing nod or 20-second sound bite).

Just my 5c worth. Maybe they will surprise us?

Although, any program that promotes sales of NZ books can't be a bad thing surely? Indeed, from a writerly point of view, far more important. Anything that sells books, and gets writers off being other than Grant fed beneficiaries is worthy.

Ask yourself, what could a program for 'writers' be about? Very specialist and pretty boring for the bulk of the population: never going to be a ratings earner for the TV station. I'm a writer, (have returned to after a long break), but find online writers forums, such as Zoetrope, far more useful than a non interactive TV program could ever be. TV is the better, mass media, outlet suitable for selling books: but that's about it, for me.

[By the way, this site is a new find for me. Love it.]

Gets writers off from being 'Grant fed beneficiaries?'

Mate, there are v. few of us who can pursue a fulltime writing life and NOT go for grants...I've done it for over 20 years (by luck) but am now getting back to the bones-of-arse stage because I want to write to my creative best, not to produce the tame, expected, eminently marketable botspoiler-

I would maintain that tv programmes sell v. few fiction - let alone literary fiction - books, and that the primary purposes of tv are information and, especially, entertainment. A tv programme for writers is, to my mind, a non-sequitur-

But Islander, mate :), that doesn't change the principle: I don't owe you, or any other writer a living at my expense. Why should I have tax money taken from me to finance you writing a book which I may well not want to read?

I am a writer as passionate about writing as any other writer. But eighteen years ago, after completing my Arts Degree, I came to the realisation that it was not economically possible to write what I want/ed to write, without supporting myself through some other means; so I did two accountancy degrees, and have spent that time building a career, restricting my writing to diaries (which has torn my heart out in many respects). Two years ago I made the commitment to set aside an hour a day (normally after midnight) to return to disciplined writing, and try for publication - yet look what this Labour Government has done in the meantime. They created the scheme whereby an unemployed beneficiary could state they were an artist, thus not have to look for work. I saw Driver stating on Frontseat what a glorious thing this scheme was. Not from where I sit. I'm working hours that make it difficult, to say the very least, to write, (which is what I want to do); I've taken on board much financial risk, and for that I'm now having more than a third of what I earn taken from me (which I could have used to retire earlier and write), and this, my money, is used to pay someone to write full time. Tell me why I owe that person a living?

(Note, you can't, because it's morally reprehensible. Artists aren't special, no one owes them a living. And I say that as an artist. Those Grants are my taxes too.)

OK Mark babee/bloke/travelller in the same wilds-

a)I pay taxes, lots thereof: I cannot choose that my taxes go to supporting medical benefits for us all in stead of supporting nasty weaponry(e.g_;
b)I think the mark of a civilised society is to provide funding for that intrinsic human activity - arrrrrtz. I think The Arts encompass a huge range of human activity (including stuff I dont actually like or support.)
c)I dont actually give a fuck whether you read anything by me, by anyone supported by the l;iterature komiti of CNZ, or by the lavishly and privately funded other literature-supportive bodies - mainline8>)heh heh mate, is -

people keep reading

"... mainline8>)heh heh mate, is people keep reading."

Well yes, we do agree on that.

Hi just wanted to weigh in to point out the common misconception about the PACE scheme in Marks' post: that when you're on the dole you just say you're an artist and you don't have to look for work. Friends of mine on the PACE scheme most certainly do have to look for work and are frequently sent along to "job clubs" etc along with the rest of the people on the dole. The difference is they won't be criticised for taking (say) a two month (badly) paid theatre gig over a longer term dishwashing job.

Perhaps this requires an article of its own to dispel the myths?

Just to add my thoughts at this juncture (and sticking to writers, and not the whole garden shed of arts and artists). I think writers should write books that will ACTUALLY SELL, thereby funding the writer to pursue a life of writing.

I don't believe writers should be given any government funding whatsoever. None. Zilch. On the other hand, if a private company wants to hand out cash prizes, grants or whatever, then good on them, and send me the application/entry form.

If a writer is getting by (fed, clothed, roofed) solely because of a government benefit, then damn them. They can go and get a job, until such time that their writing returns cash.

Thanks for heads up, Rachel :)

(Promise to do my homework better next time).

Oww. Like Stephen's post. And agree with it: although I am perplexed by the place of Arts Departments in all this. They couldn't survive on a for profit basis, but probably are important.

Or are they? I always start to balk when that old bogey called C_ulture rears its head. Not that I don't necessarily believe in it, whatever 'it' is, but only want to pay for the bits I use.

This thread has become very worldly hasn't it.

It's worth remembering that in the US, where most arts funding is through the private sector, the donors get tax breaks, so it is in fact a case of public expenditure controlled by private interests. I do believe that in a community the size of NZ some special funding of new and innovative art is always going to be necessary, and that for all the problems and distortions that sometimes arise it is probably best delivered through public channels.

Fergus wrote, "I do believe that in a community the size of NZ some special funding of new and innovative art is always going to be necessary"

Why? I really don't want to go here, but can't help myself on this topic. I've only just found this site, it's a great site, I don't want to get tangled straight from the start on politics, so this is my last post to this thread, but why, Fergus? What makes A_rt so important that money is expropriated from taxpayers to pay for it..

Geraldine, where I live, has a lot of amatuer clubs: croquet, vintage farm machinery, etc, participation in which I suspect peoples' live gain meaning, but we don't, nor should we, fund this with money from the productive sector. What makes art so 'special'? I just don't get it. I love it; writing, reading, film - it's what makes me tick ... but it's no more special than any other aspect of life, surely. And it doesn't excuse state sanctioned thief (and now I give myself away completely :) ) I work with/for small businesspeople: I see them having over a third of their earnings taken from them to finance, in part where the arts are concerned, ministerial whim. It's not right, in my opinion.

But to other threads.

If the Stephen who believes that "writers should write books that ACTUALLY SELL" is the same Stephen who wants "an actual programme for writers... exclusively ABOUT writing (and dealt with in more than just a passing nod or 20-second sound bite)"... he has a problem with consistency. Such a niche TV programme couldn't possibly sell sufficient advertising to pay its own way - and wouldn't it go against his 'pay your own way' principle?

Yes, Claire, I am the same Stephen.

The second of my comments was specifically related to the funding of writers (the individual sitting at their typewriter, keyboard, or carrel). How television programmes are funded is a separate matter.

1. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a TV programme for writers? (irrespective of how funded; and a rhetorical question, as it's not about to happen)
2. Writers should support themselves and not be government funded.

Mark- have you noticed that
*sports get funded? They get hugely greater funding than the Arrrtz do.
*there is funding for special interest groups? (from Arts Festivals to hui Pasifika to creative weekends for social workers, local body politicians, and out-of-work entomologists (well, I'm joking about the latter.)
*this is, to my mind, a far more preferable use of taxpayers' monies than wasting it on misguided schemes for promoting certain kinds of businesses (I'm thinking failed boatbuilding exercises, and massive dairying schemes, here.)
Stephen: almost nobody in the entire Aotearoa-verse - except you - wants to watch a programme 'exclusively ABOUT writing." Maybe go make one of your own? And peddle it - somewhere-

Islander, I almost agree wholeheartedly with your points :) Almost.

I don't think the Government should be involved in any of that stuff: picking business, funding sport, nothing, other than defence, police, possibly health (jury still out), possibly education (jury still out), and on the last two points I lose probably the one friend I have left :)

Actually, not education, they're particularly useless at that. The Government should simply leave the majority of taxpayers dollars where it morally belongs: with taxpayers, afterall, they earned it (is that earned, or earnt? See, that education system).

But I said I wasn't coming back to this thread (having trouble coming up with a name for that movie above, though, and I'd like to win those books).

Islander - I'm flattered that you would think I am the only writer in New Zealand who would want to watch a TV programme about writing.
:-)

Hey -- TV does sell books, look at Oprah! What about Richard and Judy in the UK? Are they TV? Might be radio ... anyway, people seem to read books they recommend (and the big 'recommended by Richard and Judy' stickers they put on the books seem to help.) Our own Nine to Noon and Kim Hill's Saturday programme definitely help with book sales here -- I just reckon they need to have their own stickers. SO who knows with this new show -- apart from good talent and production values etc it needs a good time slot and it needs to be promoted well (which won't happen if it's in a bad time slot.) But let's be optimistic ... and wish Emily luck.

Interesting comment Mary McC-
what works in USA doesnt necessarily here-
my experience is that exposing a writer on NZtv definitely doesnt increase sales (and I am not talking about myselF, but also have collaborative info.)

Stephen- heh! Seriously - what writers are deeply interested in, and most readers are intrigued by (and we're talking - max- about 20% of the population total groups) are actually diametrically-opposed sets of information...

"what writers are deeply interested in, and most readers are intrigued by (and we're talking - max- about 20% of the population total groups) are actually diametrically-opposed sets of information…"

Exactly, that's my argument for a programme specifically for writers.

Do you know, islander, I think the reason TV recommendations might not work for NZ books is because our TV arts/books shows are generally under-funded, under-supported and under-promoted. In other words, readers don't usually know to watch them and if they somehow fall upon them as they trawl through the channels late one night, they don't know whether or not to trust the opinions on them. About ten years ago now, I worked on the TV1 and then TV3 arts show The Edge with Greg O'Brien. He had strong views on the arts content, so we started with wonderful author interviews and book reviews etc. But we aired off-peak (sunday afternoons) so we weren't promoted in peak hours hence our low ratings, but despite that we picked up a steady and committed viewership (we have anecdotal research for this -- people we knew, the arts grapevine, letters, phone calls) but if it doesn't show on the ratings it doesn't last long. Despite Creative NZ funding and a shift of channels we were axed after two years. Since then TV has had an arts style show with Bill Ralston at the helm, a better time slot (Sunday night ) and a more political arts edge, and that was followed by Frontseat. When was Kate de Goldi's show? I'm trying to remember, Good as it was, I'm not sure that had a great time slot either. I remember Kathryn Asare had a books/arts show too some time in the distant past. Do you see what I mean though? Radio's NIne to Noon and Kim's show and the recently axed Books show on Sunday have or had some weight behind them due to length of service, the time given over to books and a sense, perhaps, that radio thinks books are worthwhile? I do believe radio helps sell books, but this is only anecdotal. As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually try to find out if it does or not. I review books on Nine to Noon sometimes and I work in a bookshop one day a week and I have people all the time saying ... 'I want to buy the book you reviewed' or 'there was a great review on radio the other day can you show me?' Surely with the right approach TV could the same thing?