More Ford
Friday, October 5, 2007 at 11:19AM 
I mentioned a Richard Ford interview a few posts ago. I'll admit, I'm really bias because Ford is probably my main influence right now, and I find myself hanging on every word the guy says. Here is the part of the interview where he mentions the place of "talent" in writing. I think he's dead on. But I guess I would think that.
Richard Ford (interviewed by Charlie Rose)
RF: Writing is not a profession, not in America anyway, it's a vocation, in a sense. It's a thing you keep inventing everyday - apropos of the book you are writing
Charlie Rose: It's not a profession?
RF: It doesn't have any rules. It doesn't have any standards of achievements and accomplishments… they don't license it. You can't go to school and get a degree in it and have it mean anything.
CR: But is it more art than craft?
RF: It's a species of vigor.
Reader Comments (1)
when this post first came up on the screen, I literally jumped in my seat. I thought it was a picture of a zombie. It's October, I probably have zombies on the brain ("braiiinssss..."), but that first micro-glance at the pale eyes, the long hair...
I agree with ford in a way, but not entirely. I think there are standards. Achievements. Writers are like visual artists, and visual art certainly has standards, benchmarks, awards, despite the million approaches to it.
I agree that writing generally leaves a lot of things in the air, questions to be answered on a personal level by the writer, that a diploma will never make a person a writer, or get him a writing job. But it's definitely a profession. Don't you think?