Argentina is to consider granting a special pension to writers on the grounds that they generate “social richness” but often end up impoverished.
The lower house of congress will study a proposal presented on Tuesday that would give published authors a monthly stipend of £565, well above the state minimum pension.
The idea, inspired by similar initiatives in France and Spain, would offer the pension to those who are aged over 65 and have published at least five books or invested more than 20 years in “literary creation”.
…The city of Buenos Aires, proud of a national literary tradition which boasts Roberto Arlt, Julio Cortázar and Jorge Luis Borges, approved a similar proposal in 2006 which granted a monthly pension of almost £400.
Of around 100 applicants to date 72 have been approved, a low number which should calm those worried about the fiscal implications of the scheme going national, Victor Redondo, a poet and member of the Argentine Writers’ Society, told the BBC.
The article is here.
There money will be worthless again in a couple years anyway. Might as well give them a million billion dollars per month.
I meant to say “their”, but in this case either one could be grammatically correct. Yes!
Look for the number of “publishers” to skyrocket
The best writers should sell well and make decent money from the royalties. Is the selection criteria going to be anti-meritocratic?
You mean “the most popular writers.” Best ≠ most popular.
By what criteria do you choose best? Do you think there’s only one possible criteria? What would it be? By whose authority is it determined to be the one and only criteria of what best is?
On the other hand, if there are multiple criteria of what best can be, why cannot ‘most popular’ be one?
“Criterion”
Oops. You would be correct.
How does one define a “retired writer”?
Writing isn’t really about writing. “Writing” is, in the received definition, about shaping a society’s thoughts, by providing some interesting mix of three elements: good analysis of a topic, situation, or cast of characters; a compelling dramatization thereof; and.some interesting descriptions. Writers seemed so special, for so long, because the written word was long the main means of delivering this mix, and first the time and the tools to write, and then access to the means of disseminating writing, were so hard, or expensive, to get.
But now this mix can be delivered in many more forms, which many, many more people have the time and tools both to create, and to disseminate. So writers don’t seem so special. And while writing – indeed good writing – is now everywhere and very cheap to get, book sales and the number of paying writing jobs, traditionally the means of judging the health of “writing,” are way down.
Should we subsidize writers? Because we traditionally equate the state of ‘writing” with the state of culture, many would say we should. But the answer to this question should be the same as the answer to the question, “Did you pay to read this blog, which contains much excellent writing, and does so much to shape our society’s thoughts?” Or the answer to the question, “Did you pay to read the great fiction and poetry, that you find on sites such as failbetter.com, or newyorker.com?”
And if the writing quality today is poor, and the thoughts in vogue are dumb and double thought?
Do you want the government funding bureaucracy to skew and ruin writing, to banal and anodyne, as it has done poetry and other arts?
One Hundred Years of Solitude and Zombies.
“The city of Buenos Aires, proud of a national literary tradition which boasts Roberto Arlt, Julio Cortázar and Jorge Luis Borges”
Borges was held in very low esteem in Argentina for quite some time, because of his (non-)politics. Just sayin’…
I wonder if I should start saving links to all my comments here on the web?!? I can see a well deserved stipend coming my way for contributing to “social richness” via the WWW.
I guess I should probably call my congressman/woman to get this going here in the good old USA. Lotsa work to do — later dudes!
amazing guys who’d allow a billion a year take for a rent seeking hedge fund mgr who contributes nothing, yet would begrudge one who’d spent his life as an impoverished writer a pension..
Well, I suspect that a number of people here operate on the principle that legally obtained money *is* the measure of someone’s contribution to society. After all, money freely given for a service is probably the only completely objective way of measuring what people think you’re worth. If you can finagle more money from someone for a good or service, then your obviously (short of fraud) they consider what you offer worth it or they wouldn’t give it to you.
Thus by their definition, an impoverished writer is one who failed to give people something worthwhile enough that they were willing pay him enough to bring him out of poverty. The hedge fund operator, by virtue of the fact that people are willing to pay him tens of millions, is by definition worth that much more to society.
Of course, that sort of belief tends to feel ‘just wrong’ to the vast majority of humanity. It’s probably part of the reason why Libertarianism hasn’t made. and probably won’t make, much headway.
On the other side of the pond they have, in Ireland, tax exempt status for artists. I think the first 45k is tax exempt.
This has always bothered me. Who deserves charity? The ones who won the genetic lottery and were born with good genes and into families that nurtured them and then they made good choices to become productive members of society or should we help the ones who lost the genetic lottery, had no distinguishing talent and were born into families who didn’t/couldn’t support them and then they may or may not have made bad choices to become untalented and unproductive and poor. Also, I have the same question for scholarships and state subsidies for art or higher education. Clearly the talented kids will likely become writers, artists, academics, doctors can be more productive and make life fun for everyone and like entrepreneurs maybe even help create jobs but why not lend these guys money since they will have a lower credit risk and instead give the scholarships to the poor and the untalented who have no hope otherwise. I guess I am saying that funding the talented should be looked at as an investment, like venture capital, while charity should be reserved for the untalented poor cuz they generally have been SOL.
Although an Argentine living abroad for a long time (now in Chile), I know my home country enough to make some comments on the comments to Tyler’s link to an article about a proposal that amounts to a footnote to Argentina’s rent-seeking society.
1. Anon is wrong about Borges. For the past 70 years, Borges has always been celebrated by at least 25% of the adult population (I don’t think there is an American writer that has been celebrated in U.S. as much as Borges in Argentina and for such a long period of time). Most Peronist leaders denounced him when he was alive, but today few of these leaders prefer to ignore him (as happened last weekend when Ernesto Sabato, the 99-year old, well-known writer, died).
2. At most 500 writers, most unknown to almost all Argentines, will attempt to collect the pension. As The Guardian’s story points out, in the city of Buenos Aires only 100 have applied since 2006, when the city’s government introduced a similar pension (the amount will increase but not enough to make a significant difference). When will they retire? When they meet the requirements for a pension. And the amount of the pension may decline because of high inflation but, contrary to what Lou suggests in his comment, the probability of a new hyperinflation in the next 10 years is close to zero. High inflation means that by the end of next year, CPI may increase between 50 and 100%. The real value of pensions will decline in relation to their initial value but much less than indicated in Lou’s comment.
3. The alleged “social richness” to demand a special pension for writers is copied from Spain and France where well-organized unions of (mainly little known) writers with easy access to mass media –they claim to be intellectuals rather than journalists– can influence the public debate of policies and therefore politicians look after them. Many unionized writers like to play the role of useful idiots to politicians, in particular to lefty politicians.
You’re wrong on point 1. I’ve only been to Argentina once and only have one data point but nevertheless when the subject turned to literature the locals I spoke with complained Borges wasn’t more engaged with Argentine culture. Only one data point, yeah, but when an anecdote fits a stereotype it seems like more than coincidence. Borges may be celebrated but Argentinians seem to resent his lack of Argentinian identity in his writing. I’ve never understood why. When I think Argentinian I first think: Borges. So it disturbed me a lot that I found myself (An American) in a position of defending Borges to the Argentinians I met.
Your comment reminds me of when a soccer team fans complain that they won only 1-0. They should have won 10-0.
FYI, since the 1940s Borges’ work has been studied in high school and remember that most are public schools. Unfortunately, the quality of high school education has declined a lot since then and in particular the literature courses have become too politicized. In addition, Argentina’s state universities have large Humanities faculties, with many courses in literature, specially Argentine literature. You’d be surprised to learn how many people have attended (but not necessarily graduated) literature courses in state universities in the past 60 years. And remember that in the 1950s the number of young people attending state universities was one of the largest in the world (even today students pay very little as tuition –in 1958 when I attended my first year at the Law School of Universidad de La Plata I paid less than one dollar for the whole year, a fee for my medical exam, and I didn’t have to pay it the second year).
I think your sample was too small. It takes much larger samples to know about anything.
Christian Louboutin
In literary circles, Borges is indeed considered among if not the best Argentinian writer. Even people on the other end of the political spectrum would praise Borges from a literary standpoint, even if they would comment on his unconventional |(for the 60s-80s) political views and his generally lack of commitment with social causes.
Regarding the “pension”, it looks more like political propaganda than anything else. I wonder if the government would give pensions to writers on the “right” of the current government political position.
After all, money freely given for a service is probably the only completely objective way of measuring what people think you’re worth.
writers most be get financial support.
Comments on this entry are closed.