Strike? Doesn't that Imply Steady Employment to Begin With?

Funny op-ed piece by Rob Long in the Los Angeles Times, about what types of writing might actually be forbidden if there is, in fact, a writer's strike. Not being a screenwriter, I usually just skim both the daily updates in the Times Calendar section and the editorials, but this made me laugh during jury duty. (the lovely patio is at the 18th St. Coffee Shop in Santa Monica, which is mentioned in Long's essay.)

As a professional writer, I've always been pretty good at not writing. Not writing, in fact, is one of my chief skills. I can not write anywhere -- on a plane, in a coffee shop, in my office -- and I often feel that a day spent without not writing is a day wasted. I even keep a notebook by the side of the bed, in case I wake up with an idea at 3 in the morning and don't want to write it down in case I don't forget it.

That first paragraph sounds a lot like 17 different advice articles I read about writing in my subscription magazines last month. Advice articles generally suck (even mine).

So, obviously, the prospect of a writers strike puts me in a curious position. Among the many proclamations and communiques issued by the leadership of the Writers Guild of America, as it marches its membership to glorious and pointless suicide, is an alarming list of things we're not supposed to do if there's a strike. Mostly, these involve some form of writing, which is something I tend not to do anyway. . . .

Read the rest here.

(Let's face it, if you want today's news on the writer-corporate studio negotiations, you must turn on the TV or computer. The paper will only tell you what sticking point were they haggling over yesterday.)