25 Apr
April 25, 2012

I’ve had a leasehold on for years now.  People smarter than I am told me that even if I had no sense of its use at present, I should throw a few shekels down in case.  But until recently, I saw no reason to do much of anything with the site.

My ambivalence rests on a couple basic ideas:


  1. I’m a writer, and while I’m overpaid to write television at present, the truth is that the prose world from which I crawled — newsprint and books — is beset by a new economic model in which the value of content is being reduced in direct proportion to the availability of free stuff on the web. In short, for newspapers and book publishers, it has lately been an e-race to the bottom, and I have no desire to contribute to that new economy by writing for free in any format.  Not that what is posted here has much prolonged value — or in the case of previously published prose, hasn’t soured some beyond its expiration — but the principle, in which I genuinely believe, holds:  Writers everywhere do this to make a living, and some are doing fine work and barely getting by for their labor.  Anything that says content should be free makes it hard for all writers, everywhere.   If at any point in the future, this site offers more than a compendium of old prose work and the odd comment or two on recent events — if it grows in purpose or improves in execution — I might try to toss up a small monthly charge in support of one of the 501c3 charities listed in the Worthy Causes section.  And yes, I know that doing so will lose a good many readers; but to me, anyway, the principle matters.   A free internet is wonderful for democratized, unresearched commentary, and it works well as a library of sorts for content that no longer requires a defense of its copyright.  But journalism, literature, film, music —  these endeavors need people operating at the highest professional level and they need to make a living wage.  Copyright matters.  Content costs.
  2. This stuff takes time.  And those who know me understand that while it is refreshing to meet people with no opinions, I am not that fellow. I like to argue.  I don’t take the argument itself personally — and I am often amazed at so much outsized commentary that assumes otherwise — but rather I delight in pursuing a good, ranging argument.  It’s why I value a writer’s room so much.  It’s why I used to love a healthy newsroom, which I have described as a magical place where everyone disagrees with everything all of the time.  Arguments make the work better; when people stop arguing, or at least arguing intelligently, absent the usual half-assed, rhetorical cheating, the work invariably suffers.  So, for me, any dialectic is a temptation.  And I may find that given so much work I owe already, even a brief sortie into an issue or two or a stray comment on current events will sound as a siren song.  I may want to shut this venue down three weeks after anyone finds it, if they do.  I may, forgive me, find that I need to disable the comments and simply use the blog to highlight stuff and then run like hell.  Apologies in advance if it comes to that.

On the positive side of the ledger:

  1. Every now and then, over breakfast, or in the office, or late at night, I read something or hear something that impresses or infuriates or amuses, or that provokes an interesting back-and-forth between family members or colleagues.  An argument or discussion gets good, a joke ripens nicely.  It’s stuff that isn’t going into a script or into any shard of published prose, and its shelf-life is often short.  Maybe that’s what a blog is for.
  2. It’s nice to have a small billboard with which one can highlight and link to the work of others we admire, to simply recommend the good stuff. And, similarly, it helps to highlight the non-profit affiliations supported by the projects that we’re working on in Baltimore and New Orleans.  Maybe a bit more good comes from such.
  3. In these later years, I’ve come to discover that from time to time, media folk call me to ask a question or two.  Being exactly who the hell I am, I actually haven’t done much until now to filter my answers.  I speak bluntly, but speaking, alas, isn’t writing, and very recently, I had to waste half a weekend swimming through some foment of my own creation.  For lack of clarity, I managed to say something that I not only don’t believe, but that is contradicted by every other interview that precedes it.  The fault was largely my own, but a remedy, I realized, was problematic.

Calling back the reporter who had used what I thought was a specific critique in the most general and absurd way, I found that I was either obliged to continue working through him to correct the record — and trusting in a dynamic that had failed already, or alternatively, I had to offer myself up in another interview to a reporter who I knew for certain would endeavor to deliver my answers in context, but who was more interested in other topics than the one which concerned me.

And in the middle of this, my wife — who uses both words and the internet better than I do — reminded me of the long fallow field of If that thing was up and running, she pointed out, you could simply say, in your own words, precisely and carefully what you intended to say in the first place, without having to rely on a filter.  This is the grand triumph of the internet, after all; there’s no arguing with the democratization inherent.  You could, she told me, simply say what you meant and have that on the record.  The simplicity of this had considerable appeal.

So here goes.

Don’t send screenplays, or manuscripts for quotes, or actor glossies.  Please.  There are professional venues for such and if stuff comes to me correct, I do the best I can.  Promise.  If it comes at me through this venue, I won’t — can’t — respond.  Counterarguments and counterprovocations on any given issue — let’s say that again, issue — are entirely welcome, whether I have time to respond or not. Ad hominem rage, flattery and posted links for cheap timeshares, naked photographs of your ex-girlfriend at a small monthly fee and invitations to a larger penis in just weeks are politely discouraged.

Unless your ex-girlfriend is notably hot, of course.


David Simon


209 replies
« Older Comments
  1. Sam says:

    You are an excellent writer. I find it true that the best writing often comes from some personal experience. I’d have to watch the Wire to truly see your magnum opus at work, of course.

    Thanks for your inspiration.

  2. Chris says:

    Hey, David, I don’t know if this is something that interests you or if it’s something that those reporters (or other readers) have asked you about, but did you happen to listen to the Serial Podcast that was released late last year? It covered a murder case in the Woodlawn neighborhood of Baltimore. I’m wondering if you have an opinion on it, or any insight on the investigation or prosecution based on your experiences (and, of course, your genius insight). I will kill … to hear your thoughts. Thanks. Chris

  3. Amy Goodwin says:

    Iif you are taking requests, I’d like to hear about David Carr. So sad!

  4. Brad S says:


    My name is Brad and I am currently a second year graduate student in applied sociology at WVU. I am originally from Harford County, MD and became hooked on sociology after doing an internship with the Baltimore City PD and doing countless hours of ride alongs with them. It was fascinating, and a life changing experience. Anyway, I am in the middle of reading your book “The Corner” and I was just wondering how you obtained that all that data/information? I read somewhere you spent three years working with the community members, but couldn’t find much else. Did you live with them? Hangout with them etc.?


  5. Chris says: – so this apparently happened, regarding our discussion about The Wire in HD and HBO. Any clue as to when and how this happened and how it’s going to look?

    Some people caught the show in widescreen on Amazon Streaming (That means they went back to the film elements and got the full frame from it) Apparently it’s not there anymore.

  6. Dea D. says:

    After reading a very compelling article at the guardian about David Simon where they link this blog, I got here. Only to find David stating verbatim in long anguished prose that he is motivated in this blog by 1. Money and 2. Fear.

    Now David, being a human, and suffering, (in a personally documented confession, I might add) from what all humans suffer from, will not have the TOM, because we are not there, we are here, to appreciate the utter irony. Or will he?


    • David Simon says:

      Whhaaaat? I am motivated by neither money nor fear in regard to this blog. Indeed, this isn’t even my day job.

      Given the part-time nature of the thing, it could more accurately be said that I am insufficiently motivated at all.

  7. WhatMaisieKnew says:

    Just finished reading the interview in the with you regarding your new HBO program: Show me a Hero. I happen to live in Yonkers (very integrated and great coop on Rumsey Road ) and consider the Wire the most important (and enjoyable) drama created for TV. I just want to pose a question.

    The Guardian headlines your interview “American Politics No Longer Works”.
    While I might slightly disagree in that it rarely ever worked (people had to fight and die to change things especially the labor/capital equation, slavery, women’s rights), I think the main question is: What do we do to change it? Granted people may not yet understand that it does not work, won’t get better, or why it does not work, there are a lot of people who instinctively know something is wrong but have no example on what to do about it other than individual solutions (usually bad ones) that do nothing to change the situation. Or they just blame themselves for the problem — not the social forces at work.

    I think the main obstruction is the faith that labor leaders, Black leaders, women’s leaders, liberals, etc. put in the Democratic Party to bring about change. I mean, I have been following this belief since the 1960’s and have seen it continuously fail – and look where we are now with “change we can believe in.”

    I do not think the solution is the British labor party model or the social democratic parties in Europe but I do think we need to break with both the big business parties whose interests are not with us. They are the instrument of the disastrous changes since 1980, both of them. They cannot be reformed from within. Look at the pathetic minor reform ideas of Elizabeth Warren. And how will minimum wage be increased, she says: thru legislation, electing democrats to Congress and maybe electing her president.

    Legislation may be the mechanism in which the change occurs (like civil rights legislation or the (once) 8 hour day was passed thru legislation), but the real engine of change will be a fight to change the relation of forces as has been done thru out our history. But this time, the changes needed are so great, that nothing less than a political party based upon these struggles, these movements — not just an electoral waste of time– will be needed –I think.

    This can only be done with new leadership in labor and all the sections of society that need big changes if we are to prevent ourselves from sinking further. When, how, who? well things are beginning to warm up a bit. (Ferguson, latest environmental actions, fight against right wing. Maybe not too far away. )

    • David Simon says:

      We are going to have to fight the great economic and sociopolitical battles of the late 19th and 20th Century all over again. And worse, because of the inevitability of globalization of both capital and labor, we are going to have to do it on an international basis. Is there consensus for such a fight. No. Will consensus be achieved. Only when the middle classes fully perceive the long term threat to their viability and begin to restructure their political commitments accordingly. Will it be too late? Good question.

      • WhatMaisieKnew says:

        I thoroughly agree with you. These were the big battles of labor against the injustices of the industrial/capitalist economy on the eve of WWI and thru WWII across Europe and to a smaller extent in the US. Sadly, the US failed to build a labor party but instead thanks to Roosevelt and the workers organizations that backed him, the Democratic Party became the party of workers, minorities, etc. And we see what happened then (though todays European labor parties are for workers in name only..)
        I was surprised to learn in a class on European History that the radical workers parties of the 19th century were huge especially in Germany and was one of the reasons the liberal parties become more in favor of reform (schools, conditions, etc. in Germany for example).

        But as you say, all of that is undone which is why we are loosing all those gains. We are also in a different world as you say. I am not unhappy that this is a global economy (with the bulk of industrialization in China). I sometimes think that for Europe the engine of change is gone (it was a result of industrialization, social and political turmoil) and will pass to the new big industrial enclaves. But one never can predict. But, it is also interesting to see the relationship of the corporations both nationally and globally. They really have broken the national boundaries that they fought for in the nineteenth century against the old feudal structure. They are really global and the workers are global too. Things can happen anywhere and they reflect around the world. like “hands up don’t shoot” has become a global symbol. “Our fights are their fights” etc. And cannot forget instant information world wide. I am generally optimistic barring an environmental or world war catastrophe.

      • Ausin Krauss says:

        As you will quickly deduce, I am quite naïve and of a fairly modest-education. However, in my own personal search for a free, just, sensibly organized, and fully realized life (and, necessarily, the mode of society that would allow for it) there is only one avenue that I can think of.

        Though I acknowledged the provisional usefulness of socialism, and a fairly strong state to implement it, I would argue that this cannot be the end; state socialism has been illustrated to be, if not as alienating as liberal capitalism, just as mean, and probably more crippling to the realization of a fully realized individual. If state-socialism has any usefulness at all (and the “if” is stressed) it could only be—to my mind—In preparing the soil for, or in a dual capacity with the emergence of that peculiar dream of Jefferson’s: Direct democracy. I don’t believe that parties or unions are the answer. The first political parties emerged in this country in order to defuse the nearly ubiquitous system of town-hall democracy that prevailed, and the party was similarly employed during the French, and late Soviet revolution, in order to stifle the spontaneous rise of council-democracy being practiced by common people. Likewise, I feel that unions, while provisionally useful, only ever end up stifling the original, democratic impulse that gave them rise—the most explicit example being the antagonistic role of unions in may 1968, Paris.

        I wonder what your thoughts are on this, or, on the single most successful manifestation of these ideas in modern history, the Spanish Revolution? (For my part, though I personally empathize with the anarcho-syndicalist structure, in lieu of an industrial proletariat I think that modern council-democracy would need to be based on the community in which one resides, rather than one’s labour affiliations.)

        I have never been accused of being a realist. Yet, in many ways, I do not think that any of this is possible under current (or any) conditions. At the same time, notwithstanding its impossibility, it is the only way I see of that is worthy of any earnest, human enthusiasm.

      • Brock Landers says:

        It will take more than the global middle class to see it’s existence threatened. Only when the majority of the ownership class finally realizes that it is in their long term best interest to pay working people well, reinvest in their businesses before siphoning money to shareholders, shore up infrastructure and be held responsible for maintaining the environment will any consequential progress be made.
        As rich as the 1% are currently, they actually stand to gain dramatically if only they realized how important it is to raise the living standards for everyone.


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] promotional push ended up spawning a ton of chatter about how we consume TV and indirectly inspired Simon to start his own blog in order to communicate more directly with his […]

  2. […] He discussed some weeks ago with a blog reader about the changes of new era of internet media. “Yes, in the past, circulation didn’t support the paper — it was a loss leader. Advertisin… For Simon wouldn’t be strange that some media joint forces to offer packages. “It will […]

  3. […] Read it all here: David Simon | Introduction. […]

  4. […] my maiden blog might contain some kind of a mission statement. I’d found myself inspired by David Simon’s introduction to his fantastic blog The Audacity of Despair before I ruled against it. So although […]

  5. […] quote from David Simon (The Wire, Treme, Homicide) struck a chord with me: I’m a writer, and while I’m overpaid to […]

  6. […] Wire creator David Simon has a new blog, The Audacity of Despair, which he introduces by describing his longstanding ambivalence about […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>