My question is this: if you want to be a creative artist of some kind, and you want to get paid for it, does that mean you can't want anything else?

Because if you have children, or even a dog, living on the edge to throw yourself into your work full-time may help you be more successful at the work, but it's not going to feed your kids or get your dog to the vet. And as important as writing is to me, being a mom and having a relationship with my husband is equally important.

So are a lot of things that help me write better, like reading other books and taking classes or going to readings, even having a laptop and a stable internet connection. All of those things cost money.

Also, if I may parse this:

I think it's a mistake to privilege a paying career as an artist/creative person as Better.

Yeah, I have no problem privileging that as Better.

It is very clear that I am referring to Consuela's "a paying career."

There is nothing in anything I wrote saying that it made you a better person or even a better artist.

My question is this: if you want to be a creative artist of some kind, and you want to get paid for it, does that mean you can't want anything else?

I don't think it is an either/or question. I think you have to balance those other things against your artistic career. Because the more responsibilities you take on, the less time you have for your work.

I think craving security is inimical to creating, but it's not antithetical. The more you value security the less freedom you have to create. Because security is an investment of energy and time.

As I noted (even before Jilli's comment to the same effect) some people work better from a stable place. So the balance point is different for different people. But I think that security always costs something on the artistic side.

It is very clear that I am referring to Consuela's "a paying career."

No, it wasn't. And going by the replies to it, I'm not the only person who it was unclear to.

No, it wasn't.

Okay, look at my text and tell me what you read.

But I think that security always costs something on the artistic side.

In my opinion, no, it doesn't. Also, if you're asking other people to provide you with security while you give your all to your art, then don't be disingenuous about it. Acknowledge that someone is covering the day-to-day basics.

Okay, look at my text and tell me what you read.

If I were diagramming this text for my 6th grade English teacher, your "that" would refer back to Suela's entire phrase "a paying career as an artist/creative person," which if we drop that into your sentence, turns it into:

"Yeah, I have no problem privileging a paying career as an artist/creative person as Better."

The flip side of which is that a paying career as a non-creative person is Worse.

points at what Jessica said.

Also, the entire thrust of your position has been that prioritizing creativity over security is not only a valid choice, but the valid choice, and that creative people who don't do that aren't as focused on their creativity as the people who do make that choice.

I think you have to balance those other things against your artistic career.

I don't know if I'm the only one, but this sounds -- to me -- like an artistic career should be the ultimate goal. That you'll want to measure everything else you want to do or achieve against how it will affect your art.

I guess because we're not discussing other career aspirations, that sounds -- to me -- like a creative career is more worthy than any other kinds of careers, which certainly can't be true.

I think it's just a tone thing, but it could also be that I had a really crappy day. I think goals of all kinds are great, unless it's destroying the world, and having more than one goal in your life (i.e. write books, have kids), you should do whatever you can to make *that* work, not just the artistic career.

I also think Consuela was right about being paid. You're saying being paid to do what you love is always better, but that's not always true.

I think what I'm really saying is there are no absolutes in this argument because, guess what, it involves human beings. Nothing works for everybody, and that's true of food, sex, exercise, faith, and entertainment. This is no different.

You're saying being paid to do what you love is always better, but that's not always true.

It's been known to ruin what you love, in fact. I love writing fiction. I write non-fiction for work, on deadlines. If I were to be paid to write fiction, on deadlines, I suspect I would rapidly grow to hate writing fiction, because part of what makes it fun is that there are no deadlines, and I'm free to fully indulge my writerly desires without worrying about marketability or anything else.

The point I was trying to make, David, and which I suspect you just glossed over, was that the language you were using implied a hierarchy in which the paying artist is superior, in some absolute and objective way, to the non-artist and the non-paying artist.

I'm glad you were not stating that, but I was hardly alone in my interpretation. Qualifiers can clutter up the text, but they can also be really useful for not pissing off your audience. Unless, of course, that was your intention: certainly we had a lively discussion here.