Status Writers vs. Contract Writers...What's the use of these terms when all I wanna do is write?

"What good do your words do, if they can't understand you?" Erykah Badu

I was ruminating on this thought as I write. I just read an essay by Jonathon Franzen who was adamant about making a differentiation between a "contract writer" and a "status writer". A "status writer", he says, is a person who writes with no intention of being understood by a certain group of readers; a person who seeks to build his/her reputation among the elites by indulging in literary masturbation and leaving readers behind in the dust. While a "contract writer" on the other hand is a writer who is invested in engaging the reader; someone who is passionate about reaching at least one soul because they have something to say.

But the implicit question here is, who gets published? Who determines what's art? Who are the people who decide? Is it the masses or the suits behind sliding glass doors overlooking fifth avenue and Central Park? Is it Granta or your local newspaper? Is it the New Yorker or The Mississippi Review? Is it your mother or the head of Random House? Is it the women in your church or the men with thick glasses who shop at vintage stores, read the New Yorker, and ride their bikes across the Williamsburg bridge? Clearly, if you can reach both the church women and the academic liberals, then that means you're a good writer who should not be labeled or put inside a box. As a writer, you also have to know who your audience is. For example, whenever I turn on my computer to write, I picture that brown lesbian girl in Jamaica or here in Brooklyn who I'd want to read my book, a version of myself that never had the opportunity to read work by lesbian authors of color about lesbians of color, which had nothing to do with threesomes, sex, and more sex. I'd also like the homophobic Christian to pick my book up and identify with some of the emotions and turmoils queer individuals go through. That we're not about parades with half-naked people running around in the streets, but human beings with souls.

In my opinion, art isn't art if it doesn't touch the souls of individuals. There must be something humanistic about our art/writing that speaks to the reader, whether he dresses in a suit everyday or jeans and t-shirt. It doesn't matter. Also, I don't believe that one should put themselves in either categories of status versus contract, because in my opinion we have the ability to merge the two. For example, Toni Morrison is a writer who appeals to the elites and the masses. How does she do that? Well, she writes from the heart. She writes from a place within that pulls from her experiences with people and with herself.

As people, we're complex beings. So complex that not even our mothers who have known us since birth can label us if they should try. Because as individuals, we're still learning about ourselves, all the different elements, shades, that make us unique. So it is with this understanding, I believe, that a writer who is successful in touching the hearts and souls of readers draw from. As readers you're allowed to become voyeurs into the lives of these strange individuals who are not so strange when you begin to see yourself, people you may know, or think you know. So, back to the initial argument: "Contract" versus "Status" writer isn't a valid judgment for Jonathon Franzen to make given that at any given point people can be who they want to be, depending on the height of their career, the pressure to live up to labels, the need for affirmation, the lust for fame.

But the person (writer) who is most affected by all this smoke is the person (writer) who is forgetting one important thing: The readers.

As my favorite artist of all time, the great Erykah Badu says: "What good do your words do, if they can't understand you?" And I shall add, what good do your words do, if people can't understand you and IDENTIFY?

Nicole © 2011

Share |