Negative Aspects of Freelance Writing

In A Bunch of Crap I Hate About Writing and a Challenge Jaipi Sixbear issues a challenge to "positive" writers to dig deep and give voice to some of their more negative feelings about writing. I have never given much thought to whether or not I count as a positive writer. I am a writer, and I hope a good one. One who is getting better with each day's writing and each new challenge - perhaps not measurably from one day to the next, but I know I'm making progress.

I don't generally engage in discussions of what I don't like about writing. I mean, why depress myself? Dwelling on all the drawbacks of one's job is counterproductive. Speaking ill of one's profession, one's colleagues or one's employers has a predictably negative effect on one's career. Sure, sometimes a little catharsis can be healthy. Airing the results of that process on the internet for all to see? Maybe not so healthy.

Still . . .

Creative writer meets restrictions of freelancing
I have been a writer for almost as long as I can remember. Around the time I read my first young adult novel, I knew I wanted to write. I composed poetry and really cheesy romances. Stuff I would really not want you to read today. Heck, I don't think I'd want to read it today!

What I was really good at was essay writing - persuasion, comparison and contrast, literary analysis. I've even knocked together some fairly memorable speeches, and created resumes that I know helped a friend land a job.

For a long time I fought to be a fiction writer, but I was never willing to study creative writing or to put my work out there for critique. And who would? Have you seen some of those classes? Cocky twenty year-olds who've never had to so much as wipe their own noses in all their days on earth, putting on airs and trashing each other's work because that's what they think they're supposed to do. Delivering lengthy dissertations on how their classmates' work is bland and pedestrian, how it doesn't reveal enough of the writer's angst. But these same critics produce the exact same sort of pap, and are completely incapable of giving a single concrete example of what they don't like, or of suggesting how the work could be improved. Sorry! I had enough of this bull, back in my eighth grade drama class. This was definitely not for me.

So over the years I settled on non-fiction writing. And for a long time I enjoyed it for the freedom it gave me. I could write on the topic of my choice, write when I wanted, write as much or as little as I wanted. Nobody cared to critique my writing. In fact, in the age of viral marketing I had people approaching me about reviewing their products or exchanging links. Not exactly stuff that would pay the rent, but it was something. Which led me to freelancing. Me, the non-fiction writer with the soul of the novelist.

It led me to deadlines and word counts (maximums and minimums) and sometimes being assigned a topic I would never tackle - except that it meant a pay cheque. Freelancing has meant checking page views, networking with other writers (thankfully a very pleasant experience, on the whole) and pimping my work. I just hate to do that! It's a necessary part of the job, I know, but I have developed a very intense dislike for most forms of proselytizing over the years, and self-promotion just brushes too close to that for comfort. I always figured that if people liked my work they would read it and come back for more. Sites like Associated Content make it even easier, because you can subscribe to email alerts and have a link delivered to your mailbox, every time I publish new content.

But especially for a Canadian who is limited in the number of sites that will publish her content, and to the number of articles she can publish for an upfront payment when the site will publish her, self-promotion helps to pay the bills. It doesn't mean I have to like it, but I do it.

Poseurs who critique the good writers
I published an article this week about how much I love the community of writers here at Associated Content, and how my friends and colleagues pulled together to help people who were in need. That article had barely been approved, when I learned that three fellow writers were going through rough times financially. The Associated Content community jumped right in to help, and before long my Facebook feed was full of links to the articles of writers who were in need of a hand up. I smiled, deeply touched by the support of our community and impressed with the speed at which we can mobilize.

Then I checked my email.

"You have a new comment," declared a column of messages in my Associated Content folder. Off I went to read what folks had to say about my latest pieces of work. This is a much more pleasant experience than facing the peer assessments of my past. Most AC comments are left by fellow writers, who actually have something at stake and who tend to be supportive of one another. Even if we don't care for a particular piece, we try to find something positive to say. Or we shut up, and move on to the next article. It's not hard.

Occasionally though, there are people who got stuck in that college writing classroom and have never moved on. Poseurs who use sites like Associated Content to stroke their already over-inflated egos, and who don't even realize when they've been talking for so long they've revealed themselves for the cretins they are. Commenting on another writer's article just so they can insult them, trolling for trouble wherever they go. I hate that these people operate just a hair's breadth within the rules, so there's nothing anyone can do to limit their access to the site. I hate that when they do break the rules, the damage has already been done. Or they've left the remark anonymously, and writers hit that delete button because it was just one incident and they have more important things to do with their lives - like making a living. I hate that these people can count on the history of their rudeness being erased and not reported, so they can go on to be ignorant another day with impunity.

Associated Content articles are unreliable because people don't quote their sources, the comment said. That's OK, he likes the site anyway though. Not worth getting upset at. I know I quote my sources, and so do a good number of colleagues whose work I greatly respect. Him? Normally I wouldn't give him a second thought, and certainly not the page views to inflate his ego or pocket book any more than they already are. But since Jaipi challenged us to let out some of the things we usually suppress in favour of professionalism and getting the job done so we can live a bit, I took a bit of a stroll around his profile and looked at some of his articles.

That explained right away how he knew so much about unreliable content. I avoided the reviews and opinion based articles, and went straight for the factual pieces that should have been sourced. I pulled up several on a variety of topics, just to be sure it wasn't one or two where he'd been rushed or thought he was expert enough not to have to quote a source, or had perhaps forgotten to include the sources at the end of the article. Sure enough, not a single one had even an oblique reference to what might have been source material. Not an interview, not a how-to manual, not a single statistic quoted anywhere.

Yup! Gotta hate finding people who glibly act like they're condescending just to be amongst us lowly freelancers, and who are guilty of the very thing they claim brings our community down.