I Take It Back

I like to think of myself as open-minded. I like to think that I'm not judgmental. And yet, when I read this article/column, I instantly updated my Facebook profile in support of it. It is an opinion piece lambasting Joe the Plumber for signing a book deal to hang onto the waning seconds of his fifteen minutes of fame.

The same day, a Facebook friend of mine asked me about writing, and I encouraged him to write, to fulfill that dream of being a writer. I haven't spoken to this guy for 17 years, not since high school, and yet I feel comfortable advising him to write, even though he is not, as this article mentions, a professional writer. After all, neither am I. I write, but I have not been published, nor have I ever been paid to write (fiction; I did a short stint writing legal briefs, but that's irrelevant).

I know nothing about Joe the Plumber. The writer of this opinion piece stated the following:

Joe, a k a Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, was no good as a citizen, having failed to pay his full share of taxes, no good as a plumber, not being fully credentialed, and not even any good as a faux American icon. Who could forget poor John McCain at his most befuddled, calling out for his working-class surrogate on a day when Joe stiffed him.

With a résumé full of failure, he now thinks he can join the profession of Mark Twain, George Orwell and Joan Didion.

And I bought it. I listened to his negativity and bought into what he was saying. I agreed with the conclusions he reached because he's a writer, and I like to think of myself as a writer, and therefore "we" must unite against "them" (non-writer celebrities who use their fame to get book deals, apparently). Wow. That's exactly the kind of attitude that frustrates me when it comes to religion or politics.

So a few days later, here I am, thinking about who I am and what I believe, and I'd like to take it back. I admit I was wrong. I have not read what Joe the Plumber has written, so I cannot judge whether or not he has a right to a publishing contract. Getting published is tough. I've heard again and again that it takes perseverance to get your story published. I've heard that Steven King's first manuscript was rejected upwards of 100 times. If he would have given up after the first 50 rejections, believed his story not worthy of publishing, where would he be now? Would he fall back on his side job, perhaps that of being a plumber, to be able to afford a roof over his head? I don't know.

I remember hearing about a play where Sigmund Freud and Shakespeare meet and have a conversation (or something like that). It was brilliant, won rave reviews, and only after it was accepted was it revealed that the writer was Steve Martin, who was afraid he wouldn't have been taken seriously as a writer. Prejudice plays a role in the decisions we make. It helped him. I was just browsing around on his website, and he's good. I'm happy for him.

And while he didn't use his celebrity status to land him a book deal, would we have respected him any less, would his play have been any less enjoyable, if he had? People take advantage of the opportunities they're offered. Ten years from now, Joe the Plumber would be kicking himself if he didn't take this deal.

And for all I know, Joe the Plumber's manuscript could be the best children's story since 'Goodnight Moon', or he could be the next J.K. Rowling. This book deal should be judged based on the merits of the manuscript, that's it. So I think all we can do is just sit back and wait. And if we can show our lack of support for the publisher's decision by not buying the book if browsing the first few pages proves that the manuscript was not well written.

But as a writer, as part of a community of writers, I cannot be so elitist and judgmental not to support the efforts of another writer, if that is in fact what he is trying to be.