> Bingo, Gayla! That WAS the analogy I was drawing, as it happens (I'm
> the misbegotton soul who started this thread). My whole point was
> that despite the fact that Emily Dickinson did not care whether or not
> she was published, and was not dependent upon her writing for her
> livelihood, she nevertheless produced work that's of timeless value.
> I didn't mean this as any comment against writers who are able to earn
> their living by their pens - I have nothing but respect for you, those
> of you reading this for whom writing is your full time career and your
> means of support. I only meant that when we measure a writer's work
> solely by its dollars and cents "success," perhaps we sometimes miss
> out on work that's produced by such as E.D. But what an interesting
> discussion it's been....
Nina Osier
>
>
> The real flaw with the Emily Dickinson analogy is that not only did
> she not
> have to write for her livelihood, she didn't seem to care whether she
> published or not. If I remember correctly--I haven't read about this
> in a
> while so I may be slightly off--she only tried to publish a handful of
> her
> hundreds of poems and she didn't try very hard to publish those. She
> wrote
> for a very select audience--a circle of family and close friends--and
> beyond
> that I don't think she cared very much what anyone else thought about
> her
> poetry. Not exactly a model for anyone who wants to be a published
> writer in
> today's world.
>
> -- Gayla
>
> P.S. I'm a relatively new subscriber to the list: an M.A. in history
> (emphasis on women's & political history) and now a computer
> programmer. I've
> been reading science fiction since I picked up a copy of the
> Foundation
> Trilogy when I was about thirteen. My current favorite are Octavia
> Butler,
> Sheri Tepper (just finished "Grass"), Ursula LeGuin, and Robert
> Silverberg.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:09 PDT