Introduction
I’ve had a leasehold on davidsimon.com 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:
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 davidsimon.com. 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.
Best,
David Simon
Hi, David. I had the pleasure of hearing you speak this week* at the Paley Center – I’m a fan, and I wanted to thank you for bringing up the subject of copyright. As a writer who remembers when there was no internet, copyright is a subject of growing concern.
I thought you might be interested in a related comment by Author’s Guild president, Scott Turow I heard in a Tribeca Film Fest screening of a documentary called Out of Print (fyi, I have no association with the film, but I am a member of the Author’s Guild). Turow was quoted saying something to the effect of: No class of people should be expected to give away their labors for free. I thought it was a great way to position the argument and thought I’d share, since you’re obviously a passionate advocate.
An aside… I wish you especially well with your Yonkers project development. I grew up in Yonkers during the Son of Sam years (and graduated high school with former mayor Nick Wasicsko) and have strong ties there though I’m now in Manhattan. I was unaware of Belkin’s book and am now anxious to read it in advance of seeing your project come to fruition.
Again, thanks so much for your appearance at the Paley Center and, especially, your words about copyright.
Best,
Valerie
*Despite your not being able to define “excellence in media.” Ahem.
Hi David,
After reading your words above, I guess I’m responding a bit from my own ‘Audacity of Despair’ on this one. Does this mean that I can’t ask you to read the first issue of my graphic novel, LIFE OR DEATH, when it is finished in hopes that you might say a good word about it here? I spent 18 months on this story years ago after being inspired by your work on THE WIRE, and after four times now of being a hair away from actually getting the funding to make the film, I’ve decided to create a graphic novel with it on my own. One good word from you to your fans about it, and it probably changes this struggling writer’s life. For your fans, a word from you would be like a word from Oprah on high with her book club.
Now in fairness, you didn’t specifically say “I’m not reading anyone’s indie comic book either, no matter how great it may be.” But that statement probably falls within the scope of your sentiments. You probably don’t have a half hour to read a graphic novel, especially from some strange professing THE WIRE fan who claims to be inspired by your work.
But then again, after reading this, you may desire to perform a random act of kindness – even if it was nudged by the one who stands to benefit from it; thus, I submit my request to you. Please read the first issue of my graphic novel, LIFE OR DEATH, when I have completed it. My hope is that you enjoy it so much that you recommend it to your fans.
David, I was wondering what you thought about the viability of ‘newer’ publications such as VICE (which seems to have other businesses and advertising to support it’s journalism) , NSFWCorp (which is behind a pay wall) and others.
Also I’d like to thank you and your team for making ‘The Wire’.
I gave the book Resistance, Rebellion and Death by Camus to a friend who is going on a trip to France along with your quote about the book in Sports Illustrated…the day after the Boston Marathon bombings. Timeless.
Hi David,
My wife and I are just finishing up the 5th Season of The Wire. We both think that it is the best TV series we have ever seen. We say this for many reasons. First, you told a compelling story and created a series of interesting and well drawn characters. Second, you did something that I have rarely ever seen done in TV, you showed us the interplay of various institutions and systems as they affect individuals and other institutions. However, you did it in a non-preachy, non-polemical way. Too often, movies with messages in them go over the top to make their point but you allowed the story to always carry the day and left it to us to make the inferences. In other words, you respected my intelligence. I thank you for that. Third, you used a very clever device of showing us parallels and the constancy of human nature playing out at different levels. Thus, for example, we witnessed the consolidation of newspapers by the Chicago Tribune buying the Baltimore Sun and the laying off of employees in parallel to Marlos take over of the entire drug trade and his own way of ‘laying off’ former employees.
For me, the greatest impact of the series is how it has affected what I notice happening around me. For instance, this morning I opened our local paper and found that they are starting a 4 part series on the state of mental health programs in our State. After watching the episodes regarding what gets into the Baltimore Sun, it was easier for me to make the connection between the Sandy Hook shooting, the efforts at gun control and the appended issue of mental health, and the series as it is now appearing in our paper because there is now public interest.
Thanks for the show. It was a great series. I will be recommending it to others and it will be living on in the continuing discussions that I have with my friends and family.
Next time, I’ll write a little about my disappointments with the series but for now, just know that overall I loved it for what it portrayed and how it educated. (No bracketing conversation here.)
I just want to say, Treme persuaded me that you need to pour yourself into what matters to you.
People are always saying this, but seldom convincingly, and their actions contradict them.
To pick up a trumpet and try to emulate the jazz greats may seem arbitrary and ridiculous in the beginning, but it becomes worthwhile to the degree that it develops a human being’s powers while effacing their narrow selfishness.
The lifestyle that predominates at present is spiritually lax or rudderless, and alternates between cynical drudgery and ready-made ‘consumer’ entertainment. Even the lowest level of worker becomes corrupted and selfish, because they are used selfishly and not called to anything higher.
Because of the state of society, people (who are naturally full of energy, talent and concern) become indecisive and stagnate, and everything good in them sours. And their actions take on an ugly, sluggish, compulsive character. Is this why culture is so taken with zombies right now?
Merely prodding people to be enthusiastic and engaged – maybe this can have value at times, but it also makes people revolt, especially when they detect something untrue or saccharine in the argument. What they really need is to understand their situation.
For me, this is a special merit of Treme. The show’s notable for its focus on how people are defined by what they do. Some of these doings are overtly useful, like Antoine the teacher and Toni the lawyer & mother; some of them are less obviously useful, like Antoine the musician and Janette the chef. But they all make life better to the extent that they truly pour themselves into what they do. They make life better on the horizontal dimension of better civilisation, amenities and pleasures, and on the depth dimension of life having subjective essence and sincerity; not being a collection of alien objects & objectives.
I feel like Nelson Hidalgo is a good devil’s advocate character rather than the usual hunchback villain. You see that his way avoids a lot of the risks and pains of the other way, and is in tune with major power structures. He is even vital and expressive in his way, but his life is mostly a bubble, like a social cyst. And he can’t entirely avoid the risks and battles of life; the universe doesn’t allow any part to detach and live independently.
So for me, the right choice is entirely clear – once you understand the situation.
These are my thoughts and impressions. I hope my praise doesn’t offend by misreading your intent; maybe you’re genuinely unsure whether there’s hope or a point to it all. I find this thought unconvincing but I was rather struck by your blog’s title! I think Paul Tillich said, “Doubt isn’t the opposite of faith; it’s an element of faith.”
I just looked that up to be sure; I also wanted to share this from him: “Neurosis is the way of avoiding non-being by avoiding being.” I’ve never been a junkie like Sonny, yet this describes half my life and half of what I see around me.
David,
Found your back and forth regarding the future of journalism on the Internet of more than passing interest and feel no need to repeat the points. As a 25-year veteran of daily newspapering now disabled I’m not a money guy, but a former reporter who finds myself despairing for the future of quality journalism in any form. Yahoo and other sites of dubious quality are free and easy to find, and that seems to be enough for what once would have been an audience for the traditional newspaper. Which means they are settling for shit because it’s what they have. Those looking for more can be found in the daily comments section, where they can vent all day but ultimately find no satisfaction. You can make a convincing argument this began with USA Today, which basically killed the idea of the 30-inch deadline stories Gus off cried out for in The Wire’s newsroom scenes. Those 30-inch jumps off 1B are too often now 10-inch hold-to-the-page pieces — if that. Often they are simply ignored. The Wire portrayed Gus as willing to give a reporter time to develop what may turn into nothing as opposed to the sure thing of a three-car wreck on the bypass. My first day at my final newspaper, my AME hit me up for three budget lines by the end of the day. I began on a Christmas morning. I doubt this is a unique experience in today’s newspapers, and I can’t honestly blame him given the “more with less” expectations that you hit on the nose in The Wire. We heard it with every staff consolidation; I doubt if anyone believed it, including those who had to deliver the news to us. The New York Times, as is often the case, is the example for just about anything having to do with the future of journalism. That it’s running in the black is positive, but as we both know, it is the gold standard and one of the few if not only newspaper in the country with the weight to pull this off without a significant loss of quality. And the it’s not as if the bodies have not dropped there. With retirements and buyouts shrinking newsrooms to levels unfathomable a couple of decades ago, writers at smaller venues are either missing or untrained to withstand the heft or history of an in-depth story. You are filming and living at least part-time in a major American city that no longer offers a daily newspaper operated by a chain that made the same move with roughly a half dozen other smaller but hardly insignificant papers. You cannot go to your doorstep on Monday morning after a Sunday Saints game and pick up a paper recounting the game. The move to a Web-based product, which is not turned over among readers like the newsprint version, also has presents difficulties not necessarily recognized by casual readers. Where I would once take my notebook, brain and eyes to the scene of a story, I now find my successors are carrying video cameras, iPhones and the yoke of immediate deadlines for Net editions that allow them neither the time nor space to adequately develop a story. Immediacy has always been TV’s gig; we were there to provide depth and context. We both know that a good reporter who’s paying attention might have a five-minute window to catch what appears to be an enlightened source before he or she hops in the car not to be seen again. This is not to say today’s reporters work any less hard than any of generation’s. The battle has become technology v. news gathering. It is hard to work a source with a video camera in one hand, pen and notebook in a second and a phone connection to your editor in your third and even pretend to develop the immediate rapport you need and need quickly to follow a breaking story. Worse still, Net news seems to have followed TV into the right-wing, left-wing categories designed less to inform than draw viewers of a certain ideology. MSNBC and Fox News may send reporters to the same event, but the similarities in stories will end there. Seems to me if we can’t report accurately and with at least a modicum of depth economic models seem moot. I’ll pay something for something to get something and expect to get nothing for nothing. But I will be damned if I’ll pay something for nothing of what’s next to it. None of this is exactly headline material, but the slippage becomes more noticeable daily as I sit here as a reader instead of at my station as a reporter. Asking solely your opinion, what is the catalyst that that will steer the business back to its primary goal of informing its readers? Or, should I ask if that catalyst exists? How long am I going to stay with the New York Times and by what manner will it pick up new readers when I can’t even get substance from my hometown newspaper?
Hi David, I’m a big fan. The Wire is the best show ever made in my opinion, and holds the record for the show I’ve watched the most time over.
Just thought you’d like to see a thread about the show on Done Deal Pro (a screenwriters forum). A lot of love there.
http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=67371
David. Huge fan here. I know this isn’t the right place for it, but I just have one specific question that I think only you can answer: will The Wire ever come out on blu-ray? If you don’t think so, then I will go out right now and buy the DVD set, but as of now, I’ve been paralyzed by the hope that it might be reissued.
No blu-ray.
It was not shot in high-def or letter box. No point. It appears as we intended.
best,
David
I love you and your work dude, but you just said the very thing about the internet that infuriates me the most from ‘Old Media’ types. You did not get paid at the Baltimore Sun or any other newsroom from the 25 cents it cost to buy the paper, you got paid from the advertising and the Classifieds (the Classifieds then all going to Craigs List and the like was the huge error newspapers made at the dawn of the internet, the should have used their trusted brand in this space to become the dominant Craigslist type site on the web, then the layoffs need not have happened, but I digress). The same goes for the Web, if you drive huge traffic to this site then you will be able to generate income from it via advertising, just like newspapers and TV do. There is no need to charge for it, just build a large audience then charge advertisers to associate themselves with it, this ‘Old Media” business plan will work just as well for the internet as it ever did for the printed word
You come with that three-year-late canard about circulation revenues and I’m the one who gets accused of being the ‘old media’ type? Really?
The media landscape has indeed changed and is still changing, and honestly, you’re missing it.
Yes, in the past, circulation didn’t support the paper — it was a loss leader. Advertising revenues supported the paper. Why? Because of the costs of circulation: Newsprint, presses, pressmen, trucks, gas, etc. It cost money to get a newspaper to a doorstep, regardless of how much coin you could charge for the product.
But now? Take a long breath and think about it.
Now, for the first time in the history of prose journalism, every paid subscription to a newspaper operating with a paywall is pure profit, save for the static costs of maintaining the digital website. The world has flipped and slowly, belatedly, the newspaper industry is realizing it. In fact, the reason the industry leaders failed to see it for too long was that they were wedded — as you are still wedded — to the model in which advertising with the god of revenue and circulation was the loss leader. But that isn’t true digitally. Now the future of journalism lies in paywalls and a paid circulation base. Now digital advertising can’t command sufficient rates to support first-rate journalism. (You’re wrong about that, too. Digital advertising on free webpages can only command pennies on the dollar of the print ad rates that once sustained journalism.) But digital circulation can sustain such an enterprise. And is doing so: The New York Times goes to a paywall and now has 700,000 paid subscriptions, and on the strength of that figure is being upgraded by Wall Street analysts. Next quarter they will be back in the black for the first time in many a year.
People always paid to have the paper come to their doorstep. Eventually, they’ll pay to have it available on their digital devices. As they are doing with the NYT. And the Wall Street Journal. And the FT. And even some regional papers and chains are now experimenting. Would it have been easier if they had not let the horse out of the barn for a decade or more? If they hadn’t eviscerated themselves in cost-cutting and ushered so much talent and content out of the newsrooms? Of course.
But they did and now the only road back is to nuture the paid subscription model and use revenues to reinvest in the coverage that people want and can’t get otherwise. And digital subscription revenue — which is now profit, not a loss leader as it was in the days of newsprint — will sustain the news-gathering function of a professional newsroom. The NYT at the top of the foodchain is proving it and most every other newspaper chain in the country is either following them or preparing to do so. This is the end of the beginning of a very dark and misplayed era for professional journalism.
Do the research. You’ll see that your argument is about two years behind the actual trend in the industry. Kind of embarrassing when you label people as Old Media and New Media, but then you go on to miscalculate your argument based on an Old Media model that no longer actually applies.
It pains me greatly to argue with someone who not only I respect so much, but also someone who I 100% ackowledge is about a million times smarter than me, But just a couple of points.
1. The pennies on the dollar thing about internet advertising. This is internet content providers fault. When they think of innovative ways to offer advertising on the sites, the numbers that come to the sites should drive up the cost of advertising on these sites. In a world of DVR’s television advertising on anything other than Live Sport is becoming more and more useless, when I watch Treme for example, I never ever watch the ads, I just start 15 minutes after it starts and fast forward through the commercials. Eventually advertisers will have to wake up to the fact this is happening and then they will see that the one place they can be guaranteed their advertising will actually be viewed is on blogs such as these if the ads can be designed in a way that they are a part of the page that must be interacted with, or at the very least viewed, banner ads and the like are probably not the answer, but someone much smarter than myself will think of a way. It just makes no sense that a TV show that draws a million viewers can charge 10 – 50 times as much for a 30 second spot than a blog or website that gets a million page views can charge for an ad on that site, eventually this has to change when the advertisers wake up, that is not the media (either new or old) fault, it is the fault of advertisers and media buyers who are not moving with the times. When this happens then advertising will provide the necessary funding.
2. The NYT thing is a great experiment and I hope it works, but when it happened I just flicked to reading the Washington Post. I do believe that if my first point holds, which I truly believe it must, again DVR’s will change the entire TV business model in ways much more profound than have even occurred to Newspapers with the internet, and then Advertisers have to find somewhere to get eyeballs on their products, anyway, when this happens aren’t you better off getting a advertising dollars based of 20 million eyes than $7 of 1 million people, and if you are not the NYT good luck getting people to pay for it.
Don’t get me wrong, I am no new-media expert, I just am a person who consumes a shitload of news on the internet and elsewhere, just a normal consumer and I am just going by my experience and how I consume these things and I am convinced that eventually advertisers will wake up, I mean think about Newspaper ads, I never remember doing anything other than flicking past them, I often wondered why anyone would buy a full page ad, I mean a half page ad sort of made sense, because you were on that page to read the story in the other half so you may take notice, but a full page ad was just flicked right past, but with the internet, if it is done in a clever innovative way, where you click and buy (or something actually innovative not as lame as that idea I just stated) surely that has to have a value much higher than the comparable ad in the paper.
You complaint seems to centre on the fact that Internet advertisers dont pay a fair rate, may argument is that will change and when they do pay a fair rate, the whole business model suddenly works.
Anyway the last thing I want to do is upset the person who gave me The Wire and The Corner, I spend half my life forcing people to borrow the DVD’s off me, so please, I did not mean any offence with the ‘old media’ thing, its just that as a consumer I know this is how I think things will play out, for example I live in Sydney but listen to a Miami Sports Radio podcast every day, now if they charged I would probably stop, but doesnt the fact I do listen mean that now that radio show can start advertising global brands and not just the local shopping centre, that is really my main point.
No one is upset at anything here. Argument is welcome on this blog.
Fact is advertising only commands what it does digitally because that is the market itself. Those selling and those buying those ads have concluded that a web-hit on a free page of the internet is worth X, where a page of an actual publication delivered into someone’s house or office and maintained there throughout the day to be seen, perhaps, by multiple readers is worth Y. Blaming the seller because rates of the new model aren’t sufficient enough to pay the costs of journalism seems beside the point.
The NYT is more than an experiment at this point. Nearly two years in and it is transformational for that company. And yes, what is the Washington Post waiting for? That company is leaking revenue and its product is getting weaker with every buyout. Either the Post will make the jump to a paywall, or eventually they’ll bleed out to the point where they will no longer be even marginal competition for the NYT’s national and international coverage. At this point, they are much less than they were five or six years ago.
This revolution had to start from the top down. When the national papers take their coverage behind a paywall, then and only then will it it will become plausible for regional newspapers to follow suit. And those papers are already planning to follow suit. Every major newspaper chain — every single one — is now planning to eventually maintain paywalls. Again, it is end of the beginning.
You are used to a world that is unsustainable. News organizations have realized they must find a way to create a revenue stream through digitized delivery, and they are engaged in doing so. Your ability to get the best journalism for free is going to become less and less and at some point, if you want to have professional journalism, you’ll pay $10 or $15 or $20 a month for it. As readers did when it landed on their doorsteps every day.
And if the industry really gets their shit together down the road, it will get to the point where you’ll sign up with a consortium for digital access to your choice of various national, regional and local media. As with your cable bill. You want the NYT and the local regional paper and SI.com or ESPN and the WSJ, check those boxes and send the monthly bill. Sound crazy? Don’t see why it would be. We all once got television for free. Eventually, they ran the cable into our homes and now we spend $40 or $50 or $100 a month for television. And that revenue supports a multitude of programming that didn’t exist a couple generations ago. Same thing can happen with journalism. But job one is having the major papers get behind the paywall. NYT, LAT and WSJ are already there. WP is the last national paper outside and they are struggling as a result. They’ve screwed the pooch on this moment and eventually, they’re going to have to follow suit to stop their own bleeding, revenue-wise. Right now, the industry as a whole is looking to paid digital subscription as the future.
Well David it looks like you were right, I finally bit the bullet today and paid for an on-line NYT subscription to get through the paywall, now in my defence I only did it because I have become addicted to Krugmans blog and I only became addicted because they had the 10 free articles a month deal, so I still think you have to have a mixture of pay and free, with the free used to lure you in, and also I only bit the bullet because they have a $5 for 12 week special offer, but I know what I am like, now I have done it, I will not cancel after the 12 weeks, I will keep letting it renew, so yeah, maybe Pay isnt a totally bad idea. However I still believe that the big issue is that in this DVR world that TV advertising is MASSIVELY over-priced and Internet advertising is massively under-priced and when those prices rationalize then I really believe free content will work as a business model as the advertising will drive revenue, especially when companies start doing smart ads where you can one-click purchase the product that is being advertised in front of you.
But they are all rationalizations I was saying that I would just choose other content rather than pay, but I have just proven myself a hypocrite, and I figured seeing as went back and forth on this you deserved to know you won.
P.S. rewatching The Wire for about the millionth time at the moment, I know Season 4 is universally regarded as the best season, and I do truly love it and always thought it the best too, but I am really coming to view Season 3 as my favourite (i.e. 4 is the best but 3 is my favourite if that makes sense) do you have a favourite season?
I just found your blog. I read the introduction. Do you mean that I CAN’T send you my 1100 page TV script for a musical version of “War and Peace?” Libretto is fantastic, since I use my own musical scale: 6.5 notes per octave, meant to be played on a Tibetan “lohosa,” a 13 stringed, palm sized instrument.
Pat
Whoops, I didn’t mean “libretto,” I meant score. The Song book..(in Russian) is quite ordinary…
Pat
If you wrap it in fifty-dollar bills, I’ll accept delivery.
Mr. Simon,
I saw you and Anna Deveare Smith a few days ago at the Public Forum here in New York, and I have to say that it’s one of the most fruitful events I’ve ever been to – hearing you two talk about the contemporary state of the American city was a real treat! I’m very glad that you were wrong about your plans for the blog and expect to be posting with a bit more regularity – while I don’t always agree with what you say, I always find myself provoked to thought by it, which is far better in my book.
Regards,
Ankur
Mr. Simon,
I watched your guest spot on Bill Maher and I need to tell you that you are a breath of fresh air in the arena of political debate. I loved how you spoke of the fantasy of the “Great Man” whom many Americans believe actually exists. It saddens me how Americans have chosen their politicians throughout my lifetime (48 yrs). Does he have nice hair, does he love his Mama, was he in the military, is he a church going Christian, will he (hopefully) lie to me and tell me he has all the answers. I’m at the point where I’m beginning to hate the political process. Ours is certainly flawed (the electoral college is a joke). Although I truly believe you are right about the correct approach to selecting our politicians I don’t think average Americans are independent thinkers with regard to public policy or intellectual enough to think about the points you made on Maher’s program. Yes I am a cynic. As a black woman I never thought I’d live to see a black man in the White House. Certainly not before a white female. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe there are more misogynists in this country than racists. See where my mind goes? Please keep blogging and writing novels. I love the way your mind works.
I’m happy to have come across your website after being a fan of your work for so long. I would gladly pay for access.
dear mr. simon,
thank you for this most post, my initial exposure to your most recent foray.
to the extent that it greases the wheels of your own skepticism, posts like this pay dividends long past the point at which they are remembered to people you will never see, meet, or in all likelihood, hear from.
it is the ultimate act of faith, the writer’s equivalent of “if you build it, they will come”–if you write it, they will read. as i am sure you are well aware, yours is not to worry who they are or what they derive from reading.
trust me: your intentions will carry the day.
speaking strictly for myself, they already have.
gracie mille.
until next time, all the best and then some,
tsw
I understand the dilemma of free content, but i hope you don’t decide to charge for access to your thoughts. Perhaps you could try an invitation to voluntary contributions first.
I suggest this because there are a lot of people out there who will enjoy reading your blog. Some, like me, are older and have had some limited economic success. I would gladly subscribe, but I would also donate voluntarily. Others, and I’m thinking of one of my kids in particular, are struggling artists who care deeply about your ideas but have very limited cash. They would probably be shut out by a subscription model.
Or alternatively, if you have a subscription price, allow people to either avoid it or pay a truly nominal amount if they declare themselves either students or struggling artists — in public. Would this open the door to cheats? Of course, but I pity the a**holes who would publicly post their names on a lie to read your website.
I once was at a bookstore in a remote town and I found myself short of cash. The proprietor told me to take the books and come back the next day with the rest of the money. I asked him how he got away with running a business in such a naive manner. He responded that over the years he found that people who buy books, especially books other than trade paperbacks, tend not to steal from bookstores. Of course I came back the next day. Not only did he make a sale, he bought a tremendous amount of goodwill with his attitude. I don’t claim that everyone who goes to your site will have the same ethics, but its worth a thought.
Best wishes, and can’t wait for your next project.
Simon:television as Dickens:newspapers
David when you get a chance shoot me an email. I am still close with the whole crew that you encouraged to do better in life and better in our community..Thank you so much for always encourging me to do better. David, you are a truly a blessing..From Kevin..You are a blessing to me
Would this be the young man formerly known as “Little Kevin” who was the best dancer in the bunch? I am glad to hear from you if so. And glad that you seem to be doing well. I could have guessed as much as I remember your people kept you more on those rowhouse steps than out on those corners. You were a good kid.
You’re being kind. Ed and I were there being ordinary and taking careful notes. What you accomplished, Kevin, is your own.
I’ve been looking for a book titled, “The Art of the Box”, by David Simon. I want a BOOK. Not a blog or a nook book or a CD. I have been looking for this book since I watched episode 2 of The Wire with the Clark Johnson commentary. During the interrogation of D’angelo Barksdale, he made reference to the title, but I’ve never been able to lay hands on it…any help for a huge fan and voracious reader?
I know of no such book.
There is a chapter in “Homicide” that is devoted to The Box and interrogation tactics and strategy. Not sure if that is what Clark meant.
Love your writing style and I agree with everything!
Are you still filming? Saw this little kid on the New Orleans morning show. James Craig as part of the New Orleans Urban Music M(inistries?) He is wonderful! He might make a good student for Mr. Baptiste. .
David, Please. I want your advice. I saw with my own eyes how the local press knew the truth of the disaster in New Olreans years before the national press picked up on it. Heck, we are still fighting the meme of the “natural disaster” that destroyed our city. What do I do? New Orleanian sknow how to fight for our culture. How do we fight against our own pape that spoke the truth to us post Katrina?
Thanks for the links. I PAY for a subscription to the a Times Picayune just for that reason. New is not free. I do not know what I will do in September when it goes to 3 days. Do a cancel the subcription in protest or do I support the remaining reporters??????
Any comment on the gutting of the Times Picayune? I would be interested in your reaction.