I think Neal Stephenson explained everything beautifully. There is a
fundamental difference between Dante (English dept.) writers and Beowulf
(pw) writers. Just talk to a "serious" Dante on campus, and you'll see
it easily.

Here's my take on it:
Dante's desire appreciation of their brilliance, and the fewer who
appreciate them, the better. For Dante's, it is better to be obscure and
held in high regard by those "intelligent few" who actually have the
monstrous mental capacity to understand the intricate weaving of words
they have produced than to be widely accepted.

Beowulf writers on the other hand write mainly for the simple fun of
writing, and if mass acceptance and great piles o' cash come along after
the fact, all the better! The desire to write to please one's self is
the driving force for Beowulf's (at least until the cash starts rolling
in, then it's sellout time!!!). The fact that other people might want to
read what they write, and pay for the privilege of doing so, is just a
really cool bonus.

I like to think of it in terms of Spy vs. Spy. Only in our case it's
Diva-like, Academic Snob-Spy vs.
Head-In-The-Clouds-Yet-Down-To-Earth-Dreamer-Spy.

And I think the unfairness (if that is a real word!) that Stephenson was
referring to was the inherent unfairness among Beowulf writers where
some hit it big with monster sales and other writers who are just as
talented and write amazing stories never really sell as much or become
as well-known.

And if I've offended anyone or you REALLY disagree with me, blame Kent
for starting this whole thing!

Myk

Mary Ross wrote:

> Is this not the same distinction often made between those in the
> journalism school (the PW track in particular) and those in the
> English department (creative writing)?
>
> I think the rift is very real and we are all aware of it on some base
> level, even if we have never thought about it enough to put it into
> words.  I don't know if I feel that the system is quite as unfair as
> Mr. Stephenson suggests, though that may be because I am in the
> Beowulf camp.  I think both types of writers serve a purpose.  Those
> purposes are very different, however, so it should be expected that
> the writers' means of supporting their craft be different as well.
>
> I like the way he compares university grants with the patronage of
> old.  I have often thought life would be so much simpler if I had a
> patron to support my work but he raises the point that, were that the
> case, I would be writing for that person, rather than appealing to a
> mass audience.  Such a task, while intriguing, no doubt, to those in
> the English department, fills me with worry.  I don't doubt that
> literary writers have a passion for their work, but it is a wholly
> different type of passion: a whole other beast, as I am fond of saying.
>
> Stephenson suggests that patrons in the renaissance, and wealthy
> individuals today, support artists out of a sort of moral obligation;
> serving the greater good.  I believe that literary writers must write
> (I say must because I can not speak from experience so I assume) out
> of a similar sense of obligation.  They write to better the world, I
> write to better today.  I am almost positive that, no matter how
> famous I become, nobody 100 years from now will have read any of my
> work.  But that's okay with me because that is not my purpose.  In the
> same way, I doubt the great literary writers of our time sit in front
> of their computers wondering how best to entertain their audience.
> They serve a larger purpose.  Maybe the system isn't completely fair
> but I don't think it's all that bad either.
>
> ~Mary~
>
>
>
> PS: I have the funny feeling that I've completely missed the point but
> that's never stopped me from putting my two cents in before.  J
>