Do Not Work for Exposure

I think I should set up a new category called “rants.” Today’s rant is about the folks who want writers to work for “exposure” or credit or want to pay $5 for a 400-500 word article. Or folks who want you to do a quick proofread of their work for minimal pay, assuring you the job shouldn’t take more than an hour or so (it will invariably take longer because their work will be full of elementary errors). Sorry, folks, pros like to get paid something reasonable. Because, you know, they’re pros.

I think there’s a perception that writing is easy. I mean, it is, right? You just sit down and bang out some words. Sort of the way I’m banging out this post. Bam, bam, hit save and you’re done. People who can’t do it assume they shouldn’t have to pay you more than a pittance for something so easy. Or maybe it’s just an employer attitude. There are certainly plenty of employers looking for highly qualified folks to take on huge responsibilities for a few dollars more than minimum wage.

The bottom line is you get what you pay for. If you want free content for your website, write it yourself. If you want to pay someone to write it for you, you have to offer a rate a professional is willing to take. Otherwise you won’t be getting a professional.

But hey, if there are any accountants out there who’d like to do my taxes for free, I promise to credit you on my tax form.

Where are all the ugly people?

We all know the drill. Detective must solve random mystery assisted by “beautiful female journalist” or “beautiful female lab assistant” or “beautiful female trash collector.” Or girl encounters “handsome stranger to whom she is inexplicably drawn” and must do whatever girls do in romances (fall in love with him, I guess). But I haven’t figured out where all these beautiful people come from. I mean, most people in the real world are not mind-blowingly beautiful. This is true even in LA. Where are the stories where the average guy gets the average girl? Or–take this one, writers of slacker comedies where the geek gets the babe–where are the stories where the average girl gets the movie star? Oh, and come to think of it, the movie star may not be all that hot when his makeup’s off.

Flawed people are more interesting than people without flaws. Beautiful female journalist? Blah. Female journalist with flaws and quirks and hang-ups and an ordinary face? I’ll take it (in any case, the detective probably has all those things too). If a character is going to be beautiful on the outside, I’m going to want to see some pretty deep emotional scars on the inside.

Part of the problem is “beautiful” means nothing. As character descriptions go, it’s as bad as “young.” Neither one tells a reader anything about who the character is. Sure, you can give the girl a slinky walk and a habit of wearing shirts that are too low-cut… then give her some cellulite and a good emotional reason for wearing the low-cut shirts (”she’s a babe and that’s what babes do” is not a good emotional reason). Then you’ve got a character. And that handsome stranger? Maybe he’s got a gut starting and he’s been working out like a maniac to keep it off. Make him something besides just handsome.

This isn’t really a rant about beauty. It’s a rant about depth. If “beautiful” or “handsome” is the most a writer can say about his or her character, that character isn’t ready to see the light of day. Er, and don’t add “young” to try to make it better.