Writing for Profit

The article in the Dec 4^th New Yorker titled Killing Habeas Corpus is one of those wonderful little gems that, after reading it, makes you regret that people can make money by writing. That might sound funny coming from someone who wishes they could do that very thing, but I'm okay with sounding funny. That's preferable to someone who sounds as though they are writing merely to fill a bank account. People who write simply to make money do not write because they have something important enough to say to make them put it on paper. Money is the primary goal of this person. All other motivation takes a back seat to it. The search for truth, clarity, beauty—these things remain important only if they are profitable. It is articles like this one that reveal first hand the effect that capitalism has on art.

The article in question is about Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican senator and his relationship with Habeas Corpus, the phrase which accords prisoners the right to challenge the legality of their incarceration. The bulk of the article is about Specter's long career in which he is painted as a champion of such human rights as Habeas Corpus and abortion, often putting him at odds with many of his fellow Republicans. Specter's career is presented in a light that makes him out to be a roguish outlaw who isn't afraid to ruffle feathers as long as he is fighting for what's right. The Specter of this article is the perfect character for the kind of reversal which you might find in the pulp section of popular culture. It is a reversal that actually happens at the end of this article, just about the time when the reader might be getting a little bored hearing how much good Specter has done over his career. Everyone knows that the best good guys have a bad streak in them. What's the fun in seeing someone always do good? It's so predictable.

The writer springs his carefully constructed reversal on the very last page of the eight page story in the form of Specter voting for the Military Commissions Act which basically, as the title so provocatively puts it, killed enemy combatants' right to Habeas Corpus. This character reversal acts to turn the otherwise flat narrative of Specter's hardworking and honest career into a real, honest-to-god, story that sells! It also supplies a great title—a title with a good verb that implies action and plot. People eat this up. This is what people want. Right? Never mind that the Military Commissions Act passed by a margin of 31 votes and therefore Specter's vote was of little consequence and never mind that he voted for it knowing full well that the Supreme Court will strike it down anyway and never mind that in our political system you have to try and fit yourself into one of only two parties and that this means constantly playing a very delicate game. Never mind all that, I worked hard on this story, now where's my money?