-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-josh-olson-i-will-not-read-your-fucking-scriptis-an-asshole-colea.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
An ‘acquaintance’ asking you for a favour is not a simple social interaction, it’s presumptuous and puts you in an awkward position. And just because Olson spent a long time trying to articulate his feedback to his acquaintance doesn’t mean he’s unable to give solid criticism – as he says, he was taking the time to express his feedback in an encouraging way, when there was little to be encouraged about. I don’t see how that makes him an asshole.
If his analogies don’t work for you, fine (although frankly you’re just being picky about their meaning), I’ll have a go.
I’m not a writer, but I am a professional musician – a classical singer. I love to hear people sing no matter what their ability. But if someone, who was merely an acquaintance, gave me a short recording of themselves singing and asked me to give them my professional opinion on it, gratis – not just a “yes that was lovely” but a full appraisal of their performance and my opinion of their worth as a singer - I would certainly feel put upon. Not because I’m an asshole, but because a consultation with a professional vocal musician costs anything from £20 per hour to £80 depending on qualifications and experience. For good reason. And here’s where Picasso comes in. Olson was, clearly, not trying to equate his talent with Picasso’s, but he was saying that both he and Picasso are professionals. And the word ‘professional’ bloody well means something. Professionals spend years learning, and trying, and failing, and trying again, and working their arses off and using every ounce of dedication and skill and commitment and money they have to hone their craft. When you’re good enough at what you do to be paid for it, why exactly, pray, should you do it for free?
Of course professionals do sometimes choose to work or give their qualified opinion for free. The important word there being ‘choose’. Being constantly presumed upon to do so is insulting, and makes it very difficult to remain polite. Writing is a profession that has to deal with that kind of behaviour most often. People think that just because they had a cool dream, they can write it and make millions. People think that just because they’ve lead an interesting life, they can write a book. People think that it takes no real talent or ability to write a script and therefore how difficult could it be to read “a few pages” and say what you think?
That is why Josh Olson won’t read your fucking script, and that is why Josh Olson wrote his unsolicited and utterly justified rant. The man has pride and respect for the profession in which he is working, and he is trying to make the point that other people should have the same respect for writers.
The fact that he did not rant, rave, swear or shriek at anyone who asked him to read their script or make any personal attacks against anyone, but instead put his frustration into an article which will bring attention to the lack of respect for the vocation of writing, is decidedly non-assholish.
Cheers.
And, for what it's worth, he doesn't say that he doesn't want to help writers. He says that he doesn't think it's fair for writers who aren't willing to really engage with the creative process to ask him to give them, as he puts it, "a pat on the head." I think anyone who is willing to engage with that process would have to agree.
Was he a little abrasive in his commentary? Yes. Do I believe that he's a bad person, or a destructive member of the artistic community because of it? Not at all.
http://blog.laurellkhamilton.org/index.php/site...
It seems like you're damned as you do & damned if you don't.
I've worked in fashion for 10+ years. I'm a technical designer. My job is to make clothing fit. My specialty is women's knits, mid-price range. So a T Shirt, a hoodie, sweat pants, knit tops/dresses/bottoms, those are my specialty. I also have a good knowledge base in swim & underwear.
I do not sew. That's not my job. I modify patterns that other people sew, but I work on anywhere from 3-20 garments a day (depending on the complexity of them), & I'm being paid to tell other people how to sew, not to do it myself.
When I meet new people, I have a slightly more detailed version of what I said above to answer the "what do you do?" question. Depending on how interested they are, I'll give them my what-I-do song and dance, and go on to talk about other things, or spend hours talking about how the fashion industry works from start to finish (I love what I do, so if somebody has enough curiosity to question me, I'll happily answer any question they have).
All that said, I cannot tell you how many women have TOLD me (not asked, but TOLD), that I can sew/work on/critique/modify/alter their wedding dress/evening wear/pants/coat/whatever. Gosh, what did I do to deserve *that* honor? Somewhere around 70% of them will get hostile when I politely tell them that I will NOT be doing anything with their clothing - my specialty really doesn't fit into any of those categories, but more importantly, again, I don't sew. I hate sewing. I drag my feet at doing alterations on my OWN clothing.
After 10+ years of that, I'm starting to feel pretty damn hostile. I can safely say that I understand, at least slightly, how Josh Olson feels, and I can't disagree with the hostility of his response. And he gives good advice; if you really care about your project-baby, take some classes, learn to write, learn to present yourself. Maybe ask for advice on where to go to network. But for heaven's sake, don't be a jerk when somebody asserts their right to say 'no' to you. Suck it up & act like an adult.
Also, citing a story about Picasso that makes your point is not the same thing as equating yourself with Picasso.
You don't read very well.
At the end of the day he DID try to help this rude guy. The whole point of the story was "damned if you do..." or at least "no good deed goes unpunished". Also, however subtle it might've been, this piece was a comedic piece of satire intended for other industry people. We get it. We have those same frustrations, and rather than act out, we bitch about it with each other. Keeps us sane.
It's like the asshatery you see from the tech community. I've seen Olson's article a HUNDRED times on digg under titles like "NO I WONT FIX YOUR DAMN COMPUTER". Same thing happened to me all the time, because I'm "good at that tech stuff" and enjoy building my own gaming computers and workstations, then obviously I WANT to fix my friend's 10 year old, dust bunny infested, Windows 98 box FOR FREE! And when they break it again, because they never follow my advice, MORE FUN FOR ME because I get to fix it ALL OVER AGAIN!
Now see what I did there. I bitched about something online. When a real friend comes to me I help them, might grumble a bit, but I do it because I value that relationship. When some loose acquaintance hits me up for free work, I try to send them somewhere qualified, but if they corner me, act entitled to my knowledge, and disrespect what I do by de-valuing it, then yeah I'm rude in return.
1) It's in the wrong venue. If it's truly a satire for industry people, it doesn't belong published in such a public way. That might be more the Village Voice's mistake of not knowing its audience.
2) There's no key. Granted it might not be meant as a Roman a Clef - there are definitely other forms of satire - but there's never a wink to let you know that it's a satire. Without that key, the difference between satire and someone spewing out vitriol is nothing at all.
3) It needed to be far more over the top to be satire. As someone who professionally wrote satire for three years, I know from experience that you almost have to go absurd to create it knowingly. Instead, Olson offers up a flat story about a request gone wrong. He injects drama into a non-dramatic situation, sure, but it's still pretty tepid.
So if it was meant as a satire, it still comes off more as a You Know What Grinds My Gears piece than anything else, and that's the communicator's fault.
And, yes, I realize that Olson's piece is light years beyond trivial and that my responding to it is even further still. But that's the fun part.
As to whether one can judge the level of "over the topness" to determine whether or not something is satire I think is WIDE open to interpretation. Did it need 7 or 8 more milliliters "over the topness" for it to be satire. ;-)
I would say Bill Maher is satirical, but he rarely RAILS IN VITRIOLIC ANGER angst something. He's more a smirky snarky smug, or subtle.
I just find it interesting watching the responses to columns like these. Especially going back to my tech support parallels. People who understand this frustration come together to bitch, and joke, and EVERYONE else calls them assholes/geeks/nerds/dorks etc. Especially to the point where it's created such the culture that it has. What with dilbert cartoons: http://digg.com/d3e84q and t-shirts: http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex...
The dilbert strip is EXACTLY what Olson is getting at. Is Dilbert an asshole now too for not working on his co-workers computer?
I have a cousin, who is a dentist, who can't go to family reunions anymore because he spends the whole time trying to dodge people that want to show him the inside of their mouths.
I get it. Olson is ticked because someone else put him in a position that MADE him have to act like an asshole. He has to laugh at it, or next time he might punch that guy in the face ;-).
The entire industry of screenwriting and filmmaking is built specifically on the model of professionals and those who have "made it" reading and watching the work of those who are starting out. It is completely dependent on networking and finding a mentor. This is what the industry IS, and for screenwriters to be saying how much they hate is saying they hate the system that they used, the system that gave them their career, and the system that they actively participate in to make money.
Screenwriting is a business that is based on showing people your script, and on professionals reading scripts for people just starting out. If he doesn't like that, he can get into another business.
Also: Film School is not the way everyone gets into the industry or even learns to be a decent filmmaker or writer. It is a magnificent way to become a film school professor.
As to whether or not Tech and Dentistry don't have some kind of apprenticing stage followed by a "making it" stage is also debatable...
However, if the wannabe writer is really dedicated to screenwriting, then he has also learned another valuable lesson, and that is not being a dick to someone who MIGHT be able to give insight. This one avenue is about using relationships, and Wannabe ABUSED a TENUOUS relationship. If Wannabe can't understand that or doesn't like that, then HE needs to not quit his day job.
No one makes it in Hollywood or the film business without finding one kind soul who is already in the business to take a chance on them and read their script or watch their film. How did Spielberg make it? By showing his short films to anybody that would stand still. That's how it's DONE. Yes, it means he has to budget his time and say if he has time or not. But if he doesn't have time, he doesn't have time. 90% of aspiring screenwriters know and understand what the life is like enough to be fine with that.
And if he can't find a way to give good constructive criticism quickly...well, as you say, that's his own failing. I have a professor who never hesitates to tell me what is fundamentally wrong with my writing, in detail. And she can do so after a quick cold read of the pages in class, with no time to prep or debate. But she does it in a way that I can understand, that I can use, and that in the end doesn't hurt my feelings or discourage me but instead convinces me to try harder and be better.
And, for the record, she's a working screenwriter and filmmaker.
Olson comes off as a whiny, petulant child in his piece. One of the first things every single speaker we have in film school says to us when it comes time for advice on how to make it is "show your work to anybody who will look at it."
And yes, it's important to show work to anyone who'll look at it, but the key here is they have to be WILLING to look at it. Under your logic, anyone who has a broken computer should ask me to look at it for free and then fix it for free because I have the professional skill set to do that. Believe it or not, I have casual acquaintances who foist free work on me with the expectation I'll do it, and they treat me like I'm an asshole for not "giving it a quick look."
This is the failing of many amateurs (and I use that term in contrast to "veteran," not as a pejorative): they have no concept for how much time it takes to "just look at something" and produce the response (or type of response) the asker wants. Olson is really getting at how rude and untoward it is to ask and feel entitled to the royal treatment.
There are some serious legal ramifications for working scriptwriters in situations like this. I think David Gerrold's response to Olson covered those better.
If you want to protect yourself from that, say you'd love to read their work or whatever but they have to sign a release. Anytime you submit a script to a studio you sign a paper that says, roughly "You acknowledge that the studio may already have an idea similar to this in production." Because there are lots of similar movies. Out there.
Gerrold goes on to basically say that you should never ask a writer for anything because a writer's time is too important. He joined the asshole list, in my opinion. If you don't want to read someones work, just say No. Say you don't have time. Don't agonize and lose sleep over it or come up with some bullshit "legal ramifications" excuse.
First of all the material was sent unsolicited in an email to his friend’s personal inbox. As he points out, even responding with a “no thanks, don’t have time” would’ve been an admission of receipt. And the chain of evidence you refer to may have existed, but probably not. Writers generally don’t send emails back and forth with the studio executives saying “hey, what do you think of this idea?” They turn in a draft, then get notes -- often over the phone or face-to-face. You argument rests on a speculative paper trail you imagine exists, even though nothing in the piece would lead you to believe it does. Fallacy. Fail.
Anytime you submit a script to a studio you sign a paper that says, roughly "You acknowledge that the studio may already have an idea similar to this in production."
Actually that never happens. Because any time you submit a script to a studio you are doing so through your agent, manager, or via a producer the studio has a relationship with. The informality is a professional courtesy – because they know if the script is coming from an established familiar entity they are dealing with professionals. The waivers go to the writers whose work goes straight to the shredder. Because these are desperate amateurs who are clearly dangerous.
Gerrold goes on to basically say that you should never ask a writer for anything because a writer's time is too important.
No, he goes on to say if you’d like a professional’s opinion, you should be willing to pay a professional’s fee for that opinion. And neither Olson’s piece nor Gerrold’s anecdote refer to close friends, by the way. They refer to intrusive daydreamers on the fringes of their social circles.
I mean my dentist is a friend or sorts; we attend some of the same social functions, I’ve been to her house for gatherings. But I’d never leverage that relationship for free work because it’s in poor taste. If it was an emergency, and she offered, I probably wouldn’t refuse, but I wouldn’t expect it or demand it -- because I’m not a dick. But if I were such a lout, would it really be all that unreasonable for my dentist to get upset about it? Would she really owe me a “polite” answer, in the hopes that I’d get the hint? WHY?
You can contact a studio and ask if they're interested. You can contact an individual. If they are, you sign the form, send the script, and there you go. Your counter-argument to mine is basically "You say this exists, I say it does not therefore you are wrong." If you want, I could send you just one of many waivers that one would sign in sending out a solicited script. Or I could go into detail about how involved producers can be and how many drafts something will go through in 6 months. Remember, this article was referencing a commissioned script, not a speculative one. 6 months is a long time, longer than they would give for a first draft. Longer than they would give for a first draft and a second and a polish. I would be dumbfounded if emails hadn't been exchanged, each one time-stamped.
Bear in mind, if you ignore all of these things which, in my experience I'm certain were most likely in place, the first draft of the script should have been registered with the WGA, establishing an exact date of that material. If the other party would have liked to say he stole something, first up is arbitration with the WGA, which would have almost certainly gone with the writer.
And Gerrold does state, towards the end, that you should never impose on a writer's time. He doesn't specify whether he's talking about friends, relatives, aliens, or dogs needing to go to the bathroom. He just says that a writer's time is too important.
Also, your example has already been rebuked by Cole above. Asking your dentist to do WORK for free is one thing, asking him to give ADVICE is another. Would you ask your friend for advice on a toothache? Maybe just take a quick peek at a dot that could be a cavity? All you're doing is asking for a moment of time.
I'm not some long-term UPM or anything, but I've been around the block a handful of times.
The key there is the handful.
Zing.
Meanwhile, if there's anything my 298 years in the industry has taught me it's that the point about the legality is that:
1) It's actually of consequence as opposed to Olson's meaningless yawp into the grand nothing, but;
2) It's super rare and;
3) Safeguarded against pretty seriously.
I'm still waiting for you to impart some of your many years garnered wisdom on us, though.
What is it with the black and white thinking here?
And do we need to get someone with 48 years experience to come in and denigrate you as a newcomer? :)
Make no mistake - I don't give a shit about your experiences. I just thought since you involved yourself in the conversation you might wish to add to it,rather than just sign your name on the ever-growing list of assholes who have time to complain, but not time to add anything of value.
And yes, Cole is correct. While 3 years is not a lifetime, its plenty of time for me to make the observations I stated above that have not been rebuked - since they're accurate.
Robert, my initial statement was that your referring to the anecdote of a working writer with five decades of professional experience as “idiotic” was naïve. You now back up your fallacious conclusion based on three years of PA work which, as you’ve illustrated to anyone who knows better, has only garnered you the vaguest understanding of how the business operates.
You’re a greenhorn who thinks he has it all figured out. Exactly the sort of bottom-feeder at whom Olson’s rant is directed.
While perhaps calling Gerrold's post idiotic was hyperbolic, I can say I don't agree with just about anything in there. Instead of salting the ground when someone asks you a favor, simply say "no." Further, his sentence: "Real writers write, they understand enough about writing to know that writing time is so precious that you NEVER impose on someone else's working time," bugs me for the reasons mentioned earlier. Unless he means you should bug a writer while he is writing, but it seems more like you just shouldn't ask writers anything ever - they're far too important.
In regards to your first post, you didn't say I was naive for calling out a writer with 50 years experience. You called me naive and then immediately started retelling the story about personal e-mails, "admissions of receipt" and the like, all of which are things I addressed as having no real consequence to the modern writer who has multiple saved drafts, correspondences with producers, etc. One email dated 2 weeks ago will not prove I stole the ideas for my script that was last saved 4 weeks ago.
As for being the target of Olson's rant, I thought he had aimed it at amateur writers who pass their scripts off on unwilling people or casual acquaintances? As someone with access to dozens of writers, several directors, and all sorts of producers, I've never once made any sort of overture towards them. In fact, in many interviews with writers, directors and stars, which you can read or watch right here on this site, you can clearly see I'm not slipping them scripts under the table. If I were, I guarantee I would have been taken off all the junket invitation lists by now.
If either author had explicitly stated they don't want completely random, borderline retarded individuals handing them ideas on cocktail napkins, that's one thing. But both just blanket all writers into the "you're an asshole and I'm not reading your script because you're a weasel or a shark" camp. Olson makes passing mention of "good friends" which I suppose gets him a minor reprieve, but still, many people took issue with the article and what he was stating.
Many people out there are perfectly willing to be mentors. As writers who have achieved success, who are they to shit on other writers as being mostly talentless and often rude?
As Cole mentioned, several other screenwriters of roughly the same level of success of Olson take time out of their days to answer emails, forum questions, and post insight. So at the end of the day, those are nice people and Olson, at best, is not an overly nice person and is, at worst, an asshole.
My first post: “Gerrold’s post was by no means idiotic, and calling it so is naïve.”
Your argument is still based on "You say this to be true, I disagree therefore you are wrong." Doesn't win arguments.
My argument is based on habeas corpus. Literally, “produce the body.”
Seriously, quit before you dig yourself a deeper whole. I don’t know what’s worse: your ignorance, poor reading comprehension, or steadfast conviction that three years of production grunt work makes you an expert on copyright law. Instead of merely using the vast network of industry professionals you have access to as justification for ignorant prattling, why not take the time to ask them some questions about how the business works? If you do so in a courteous manner I guarantee they won’t call you an asshole or write an angry screed about it in the Village Voice, and it’ll not only help you better navigate the industry’s shark-filled waters, it’ll make you look like less of an ass on the internet.
I'm also losing interest in this argument because I believe I've broken Disqus' nest feature, you haven't made a single point since your first post and you've opted to go for personal attacks rather than anything resembling making a logical, factual argument.
But because I'm me, I can't let go and here is some of my lengthy response, because you seem to think you're awesome and infallible and I've done you the great favor of taking some of my time and want to help better your debate skills:
Re: Your first post. That sentence was immediately followed with "First of all the material was sent unsolicited in an email to his friend’s personal inbox." It was not followed with "He is a respected, award winning author with 50 years experience so you should believe him." If you're going to insult my reading comprehension, perhaps you should work on better communicating your ideas through the written word. What you typed and what you apparently meant are unrelated. If you make the statement that my opinion comes from a place of naivety, then go on to argue against my points over copywrite law, it seems as if you're calling me naive over my knowledge of law, not over a lack of respect for an author.
Do they serve my argument? Of course. I would offer them up as proof if they didn't.
2. "Podunks" refer to people who live in the middle of nowhere. Dr. Abaius lives in Ausin, I live in Hollywood.
3. No one here is asking for handouts. We're commentingon a situation. You need to learn that some things aren't personally motivated.
Because some people take time out to do that, anyone who doesn't is an asshole?
What an ungracious person you are. How incredibly rude.
Because what you just said here is that you take it for granted that that's what they should do, and anyone who doesn't is not a nice person.
My God, you really do think the world owes you something for nothing.
Then, add in the fact that he doesn't offer advice, but apparently asking for advice is offensive to him and he writes an unsolicited rant telling people who would ask him for help to fuck off and calling them assholes. That doesn't seem nice. Follow?
Further - how am I ungracious? To be ungracious, you have to have been given something and then snubbed the giver. Olson has given nothing. Is it rude of me to call Olson an asshole? Certainly. Was it rude of him to write 800 words on who he considers assholes and tell them to fuck off? Certainly.
So no, I didn't say anything remotely close to what you've taken from my words. Nor do I think the world owes me anything. I don't expect anything from John August or Josh Olson. If one of them chooses to offer advice to others, I'm grateful. If one of them chooses not to, I'm not bothered. If one of them chooses to call aspiring writers assholes and tell them to fuck off and then Cole Abaius writes an article about it, I comment. Simple as that.
I was explaining how I can't be ungracious because Olson hasn't given me anything. The guy whose work he read and he gave ideas to SHOULD be gracious. It's a great honor and a great help to be read by someone who is successful. But I was called ungracious and Olson has done nothing for me. Semantics.
Second, no one here has said it's ok for a stranger to just hit someone up randomly. These people are acquantainces at least, not strangers. Also, even if a stranger does hit you up for help, instead of posting a public rant telling him to fuck off, just say you can't read it. I'm certain the young man who caused this great dilemma has heard of this rant, read it, and realized it was him. His friends possibly too. Olson should talk to the person causing the problem, not the internet.
Third, Dr. Cole Abaius is a terrible doctor.
I mean, you just read and commented on more than 2 pages of text. Are you trying to tell us it's that difficult? How can you spend pages and pages of text defending a guy that will not read and comment on 2 pages of text?
And finally, when it comes to your statement "you should be willing to pay a professional's fee", you should try to keep in mind that buying a copy of "A History of Violence" only earns Mr. Olsen about 10 cents. So, OK, here's my dime. Now give me a polite answer. Please?
The real thing the article proved was that Olson is incapable of giving constructive criticism. He writes: "You may want to allow for the fact that this fellow had never written a synopsis before, but that doesn't excuse the inability to form a decent sentence, or an utter lack of facility with language and structure. The story described was clearly of great importance to him, but he had done nothing to convey its specifics to an impartial reader. What I was handed was, essentially, a barely coherent list of events, some connected, some not so much. Characters wander around aimlessly, do things for no reason, vanish, reappear, get arrested for unnamed crimes, and make wild, life-altering decisions for no reason. Half a paragraph is devoted to describing the smell and texture of a piece of food, but the climactic central event of the film is glossed over in a sentence. The death of the hero is not even mentioned."
So it's an unworkable P.O.S. But you're trying to be nice and get this over with, so what do you say? "I'm not sure why these two scenes need to be in the movie." "I think you should give your hero a better death scene -- as it is, the audience would feel robbed." "I really like this theme right here; you might have something with that." "Why did Character A do this? I don't really have a handle on who she is and why that connects to the plot." Voila, it's a half-hour later and you've done a good deed. Now shut the heck up about it. I'm not sure why Olson couldn't do that.
I can understand Olson's reasoning, but like you stated, there are ways to go about it without being a complete douche. Olson didn't take that route, and, in my eyes, seems like he's worried that somebody else may steal his thunder, coming up with a better script, and possibly stealing away a potential job. Who knows, right? It's happened before.
This just seemed like a piece for Olson to put somebody else down... I'm more talented than you, so I can afford to talk down to you in order to boost my own ego, because I'm Josh Olson, and you're nobody! Real mature there, Josh. Looks like it kinda backfired, eh?
All I know is, having actually seen Infested? A writer, no matter if he also worked on A History of Violence, has no room to act like an asshole. Seriously... flies that turn you into zombies and die from Trio's "Da Da Da" song?
Batman: Gotham Knight (2008) (V) (screenplay) (segment "Have I Got a Story For You")
so well written! "i'm waiting for this guy to totally waste me, right? i've never seen em before, but i so like know who this is." mmmhmm this authentic urban urchin dialogue really sold me on the story.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/arch...
Have at him, amateur wannabees.
xxoo
mshark
I have no idea why anyone who's not a pro-screenwriter would defend this mindless hogwash. In fact, I don't know why anyone would. Mama raised me to be nice to people, even those who are rude. It's the Christian thing to do. And all that swearing!
I didn't watch my buddies die face down in the mud at Da Nang to listen to whiny guy bitch about how tough readin' and writin' are.
In all seriousness, anyone who doesn't understand that hasn't gotten past a third grade reading level.
http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/...
Calling Olson a "Hero" might be a little strong -- unless you've been unfairly dissed by some yahoo who wanted you to read and critique his first draft of his first story EVER. FOR FREE. [which has happened to me, btw]
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/arch...
[Doc, howz it feel to be on the wrong side of history?]
That's flat-out wrong; it's 'built' on writing great material and then getting it in front of an agent.
BTW: Again, read closer: Olson admits he reads friends' scripts and "mentors" to a number of people.
=======
RE: The "Doctor's" criteria for satire --
"1) It's in the wrong venue..."
Probably 80 percent of the responses are from people who get it, many of them professional writers. It's New York, fer chrissakes. And it's been picked up and reprinted in a number of writing/writers/film blogs.
Try again.
"2) There's no key. ...but there's never a wink to let you know..."
I got yer wink, dude.
Satire is a dying art in contemporary america -- mainly because people are so fucking stupid. If you have to explain it...
BTW: The kind of people who want to ban Mark Twain's Huck Finn from libraries need a friggin' "key", too. Jeesus, c'mon Doc, don't feign ignorance just to justify your wrong-headed essay.
"3) It needed to be far more over the top to be satire..."
Um, it was titled, "I WILL NOT READ YOUR FUCKING SCRIPT!"
sigh.
and finally, the coup de grace from the Film School Reject: "...it still comes off more as a You Know What Grinds My Gears piece than anything else, and that's the communicator's fault."
You Know What Grinds My Gears piece? Gee, with that title? Ya think?
Just suck it up and say you were wrong, Abaius.
And no, Abaius, it's not satire. If it were satire, it wouldn't be sincere. He's using a rhetorical device called "taking it up to 11," and it's a shame that someone who claims to have once been a professional writer doesn't get that.
It's obvious from the piece that Olson reads people's scripts - enough of them to have two piles next to his bed. What he's talking about are rude assholes who want to take shortcuts. No one is obliged to be polite to them because they're not being polite to us.
You can usually tell real writers by how they carry themselves. The people complaining here are proving you can also tell real NON-writers by how they carry themselves.
I'm also baffled by why people think Olson's piece "takes it up to 11." He barely gets up to 6 here. Using fuck a lot and being dickish isn't outlandish. In fact, it's fairly simple to do. Taking it up to 11 would be closer to Gerrold's piece where he talks about burning down the homes of the entitled. It's absurd, something no logical human would ever do, and he uses it really well to illustrate an outrage. Olson just doesn't take it far enough to use your rhetorical device.
(In fact, the only reason he'd need to use hyperbole like that is if it was satire).
I think it's also telling that the dividing line has been created much in the same way Olson creates a false dichotomy between being the asshole who says no and being the asshole who says yes. Those aren't the only two options. In fact, it's easy to remain totally calm about the whole thing and sleep easy at night. (Yes, I realize no one is obliged to be polite, but...wow...why wouldn't you be? For self-satisfaction? Because you believe retribution works? Because when someone's mean you have to throw dirt right back in their face? Help me, please, understand that mindset).
The two scenarios I see if you're decent about the whole situation are:
1) The person takes your "no" calmly or takes your criticism well and you've helped out someone who needed it; or
2) The person is a total asshole who hates you for saying "no" or gives you the finger when you try to help them. That sucks, but you can shrug it off as their malfunction if you've gone out of your way to be nice about it. It certainly wouldn't gnaw at you enough to rant about it publicly.
I'm not condoning wannabes who feel they are entitled to free advice and act betrayed if it's not giving to them the way they want it. I'm saying that being an asshole isn't justified because someone else is an asshole.
And that point seems to have been lost amongst the desperate race for people to stake a claim as to how legitimate they are as writers. That false dichotomy of agreeing with Olson making you legitimate and disagreeing making you a simpering wannabe.
I find myself somewhere in the middle. I don't write screenplays (so I don't really need Olson or anyone's advice on them), I currently write for a living (so I'm the one giving advice or turning the favor down), so I should be Olson's target audience.
One last thing - I don't think people are complaining. I think most people are just slapping their heads at what a massive asshole this guy is. There are thousands if not millions of writers and non-writers that can and will read people's work to lend a hand up, so I doubt that anyone is really decrying the loss of Josh Olson as an option. And furthermore, splitting people up between writers and non-writers based on whether they get paid or not is downright vicious.
If you wake up in the morning and write, you're a writer. If there are stacks and stacks of notebooks and reams of paper that no publishing house wants to publish, that doesn't take away the fact that you write. You write, you're a writer. You publish, you get a paycheck for it.
I apologize in advance if you actually meant that there are fake writers among us - as in pretend beings who are posting on this site. The misunderstanding is mine.
I find it very irritating that people think there is some sort of caste system for writers, based on publishing. Maybe there is to a degree, but you don't get to pass judgement as to who is a writer and who isn't. Do they write? They're a writer. Do they write well? They're a good writer. Do they get paid? They're a professional writer.
I am a writer. I have been paid to do it in the past, but I haven't sold a screenplay, yet. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm a writer, or that I actually volunteer myself to people who are trying to perfect their scripts as a reader. I actively seek out people looking for advice because I know that all I want is somebody to read my work and give me honest feedback and if that's what I want to get from the world, that's what I have to put into it.
No, you're not. Writer is a profession. If I get up in the morning and cut a cat open, I'm not a surgeon.
"splitting people up between writers and non-writers based on whether they get paid or not is downright vicious. "
You couldn't be more wrong. That attitude - from a writer! - is one of the problems here. Have some respect for your profession.
"I'm not condoning wannabes who feel they are entitled to free advice and act betrayed if it's not giving to them the way they want it."
But you are. Olson's piece is only about those people. He's trying to shift the gears, and let people know that you are NOT entitled to free help from professionals, that it must be earned. You, on the other hand, are supporting the commonly held view that that ARE entitled to that.
Olson is standing up against the lack of respect for writers that is so prevalent. You are supporting that lack of respect. Your fixation on the style of writing he used is the very definition of pedantic. The piece works, even if you can't quite figure out which one of your pre-made boxes it should fit into. That's because he's a real writer.
And based on the responses on the internet, he got that point across in spades. I will guarantee you that offline, the responses are even more positive. I don't know a single writer who didn't love it. And I'm using the term "writer" properly, unlike you.
I don't receive a paycheck to masturbate, but I do it and therefore am a masturbator. If I received a paycheck I would be a "professional" masturbator.
Just because writing requires a particular skill set doesn't mean that the title can't be achieved without doing it for a living.
If you woke up and cut a cat open, no you would not be a surgeon as you are not technically performing surgery, you are just cutting open a cat and therefore are a cat cut-opener.
And I hereby offer this open letter to all who think they are entitled to a pro's opinion for free:
You are not. Therefore if someone will help you, be incredibly thankful. Shout their praises from the rooftops and buy them a bottle of whiskey, for they have helped you when they didn't have to. Also, if someone refuses to help you, assume it's for good reason, be gracious and thank them for the consideration anyway.
Oh, and I do have respect for my profession. I just also have respect for who I was when I was 20 and still trying my hardest to get a paycheck for what I love.
The bigger question of the "Is someone a writer if..." question is if it even matters. I wasn't aware I needed someone else's approval to call myself a writer.
And if Olson is standing up against a lack of respect for writers, he should carry himself in a respectful manner.
You still don't address major flaws that have been pointed out in your hastily conceived article. As many have pointed out, the piece was about strangers who accost writers. To point out that Olson must have had people read his scripts when he was starting out is comparing apples to oranges. You want to think he's an asshole and a hypocrite, but what if he simply took the higher road - as most writers did - and never once pestered a stranger to read for him?
But, since you're a fanboy blogger, the introduction of new facts or ideas will never be acknowledged, because once you've made an assertion, you must never deviate from it, even when you realize it's wrong, right?
"I prefer the term "Amateur Veterinarian" whenever I perform early morning cat cuttings. "
Very good. So you'll change your statement to read, "If you wake up in the morning and write, and aren't paid for it, you're an amateur writer."
I'd like to add one thing to that statement, if I could. I think it ought to read, "If you wake up in the morning and write, and aren't paid for it, you're an amateur writer, and far more likely to think a professional writer is obliged to drop everything he's doing and focus on your work, and far more likely to call him an asshole if he calls you on your rude behavior."
If a person operates a camera, they are a cameraman. They don't have to get paid to be a cameraman. They have to get paid to be a "professional" cameraman.
If the action is performed, the title is achieved at that moment. You are what you do, not what you get paid to do. You can add words to precede it to make the claim more accurate, but it doesn't change the fact that one is it.
We're talking about respect for writers and writing. The lack of that respect shown here by people like "Dr." Abaius is the problem.
You're not being respectful, you're being an elitist.
It's an elite job, requiring years of training.
Show some respect.
If you respond back with something like "neither are writers because of this, and this" or "one is a writer because this, and this" then you're beginning to extend a definition to include certain groups of individuals that qualify based on your view of what a writer is, when in fact the simple definition of writer really is just one who writes.
You are defending something that is not being attacked. You seem to think that by saying anyone who writes is a writer is saying that professional writers do something that anyone can do and get paid for it. That's not what's being said. You are enveloping the whole of the word writer into the sub-category of professional writer, and are therefore saying that anything outside of that bubble is essentially nothing, or at most less than a writer.
You could do with showing a little respect yourself. Instead you insist on being disrespectful to all in this forum and any struggling writer who hasn't been discovered yet.
The first step to becoming a writer is learning to think like a writer.
The behavior you people are supporting here is that of selfish, rank amateurs.
And on top of that, you can't even read.
You should learn to read before you accuse others of being illiterate. You're being a close-minded and bogglingly idiotic about this.
There's a way to be polite and respectful to a writer while still asking for their help, and there's a way for them to be polite while they say no, and there's a way for you to still be polite while you accept their answer. If you can't figure that out, then what in the world are you doing still in this argument, other than to get the last word and feel like some high-minded perfectly opinioned crusader?
1) Who, exactly, is Olsen being rude to?
2) Can you please share with us a way to approach a complete stranger and ask them to take time out of their life to provide you with incredibly valuable professional help that isn't rude?
A young production assistant is working on their assigned task while chatting with the producer, who happens to be sitting in the same room while they play the "hurry up and wait" game.
P.A.
I'm enjoying this, it's great experience. Film school couldn't really compare.
PRODUCER
So, what did you study in school?
P.A.
Writing, mostly. I've been working on my own script, off and on. I've sent it out to a few agents. It placed in a festival last year.
PRODUCER
Really? What's it about?
P.A.
It's a sci-fi film about a girl who thinks the football team is a pack of werewolves.
PRODUCER
Are they?
P.A.
Yes, and then she has to organize the students to rebel. Would you like to read it?
PRODUCER
I don't know if I'd have the time.
P.A.
That's alright, I know this shoot is taking up all of our lives right now, and you probably have other stuff going on.
PRODUCER
Tell you what, email it to me and if I get a chance I'll take a look. No promises though.
P.A.
Thanks, it would really help me out to get more feedback. The more eyes you can get on your script the better.
Just then, the walkie talkie on the P.A.'s hip BEEPS
1st A.D.
Where the hell are my PAs? We need to lock down this set!
The PA looks at the producer and shrugs. He leaves to work on yet another task.
FADE TO BLACK
A fantasy scenario? I've already seen it happen several times and I've only been on two film sets so far.
Notice I didn't write a scenario with a complete stranger. That's something I never suggested, nor did most of the people on this comment thread, nor was that what Olson was discussing. Your reading comprehension is low.
"A fantasy scenario? I've already seen it happen several times and I've only been on two film sets so far."
You're obviously never going to actually read or comprehend what people are saying and talking to you is useless. You're insistent on having the last word, so I will let you have it with whatever ridiculous, close-minded and uninformed retort you have.
2. Just simply ask for guidance. Ask what it takes to get your script read instead of asking them to read it. You're not asking for extensive time so much as a quick suggestion.
First, Olson's piece wasn't about strangers. It was about friends of friends. Semantics aside, I never say that it's okay to accost screenwriters. In fact, I called the guy that asked the favor an asshole as well in my hastily written piece. That doesn't excuse Olson from also being an asshole.
I also don't have personal knowledge of how Olson got to where he is today. Perhaps he never asked for help. Maybe his Godfather is in the business. Maybe he begged every pro he met to read his stuff. Maybe he worked his ass off until someone took notice of him. You also don't know. Neither of us knows whether "most" writers or "some" writers or "12" writers never ask for help from mild acquaintances either. So perhaps Olson isn't a hypocrite. But he's still a rude asshole. And I've seen no reasoning as to why he's not so far.
I can see from you stereotyping me as a blogger fanboy that you haven't read anything else I've written. I'd also like to take this time to apologize if you feel I've stereotyped you. I'm earnestly trying not to.
And I'll change that statement to read anything you want it to read: "Amateur writer, "Unpaid writer," "Duck-Billed Platypus writer." However, I just can't work up the energy to care what phrasing is used. I imagine the only way to care would be to have a need for legitimacy from some arbitrary outside source. Those who write, write. Those who get paid for it, should count their blessings.
I for one have never asked an acquaintance to read my work. But I know an asshole when I see one. I'm sorry that someone (or many people) may have taken advantage of your professional status. But there are ways of handling that situation that don't require a high horse, and being rude to someone who is rude to you is still being rude.
I'm not sure what's so complicated about that.
Also, you don't know enough about professionals to understand that it's also clear in the piece that Olson has never harassed a slight acquaintance, a stranger, or someone he just met at a party to read a script. While you may think that's acceptable behavior, it isn't. You'll have a hard time finding a pro who thinks it is. So when someone like you theorizes that it's likely Olson got his start that way, you're offering a theory that this article negates by its very existence.
And if you'll read the article again, you'll see that he was exquisitely polite to the person who gave him the treatment. He read it, he spent a great deal of time responding to it with honesty, and decency.
The only person he's being rude to in this piece is a hypothetical character. When you say he's being rude, you're admitting that you didn't understand the article.
And I would also suggest that someone who does what you do is not going to come close to being barraged by as many requests as a working screenwriter, especially one who's been nominated for an Oscar.
As for your writing, you're right. I haven't read anything else you've written, outside of your columns here. Where does this professional writing you speak of take place?
I don't think you're an idiot or can't read or don't understand things because we disagree. We just disagree.
I'm sorry if you have to question the legitimacy of someone who shares a different viewpoint from your own. That must be exhausting.
Did you actually read the piece? It's hyperbole. In the incident that sparked it, Olsen was ridiculously polite to the asshole. The piece was designed to smack people like that in the face and get them to think about their incredible rudeness and stupidity. Based on the responses here and on the Voice site, though, it looks like assholes really hate being called on their shitty behavior.
Yes, writing a great script and getting it to an agent is a fairy tale and a perfect way of going about things. But how do you get that great script? By putting it in the hands of pros for comments and mentoring.
Every professional I've talked to about screenwriting has said that the way to get your script ready for even sending out to agents is putting it in the hands of pros who are willing to give you comments.
So while yes, writing something brilliant and getting an agent will get you in, it's not the way it works for the most part. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.
I was introduced to the stylistic genius of Mr. Olson's masterful writing skills by the featuring of his article on Google News. Apparently Olson is so badass cool, that even Google News puts his profanity-laced headline right on it's front page.
Those of us who rely on Google News for actual news, might have been a bit perplexed to see it's title on the news front page. I'm sure I'm not the only one who found it's inclusion distasteful and rather inappropriate. On the upside, though, it did give me an opportunity to read some of those most amusing ego and rage driven trite I have ever seen described as "news". News, it certainly was not. Why Olson, or Google News, for that matter would think his infantile tirade is newsworthy, is beyond me.
If you'd like to see screen shots showing this headline appearing on Google News, and then Google's subsequent actions when made aware of this asked for a comment, see:
http://budgallant.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/goog...
http://becompassion.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-t...
Olsen has a lot of good points. Critiquing people's writing IS as much work as writing for yourself is. Arguably his blog is more about venting over a particularly bad situation that happened as a result and probably some bad gossip going around his circle of friends, but he's right. In fact, he omits the best defense to all of this: the legal aspect of potential copyright infringement by accidental idea/inspiration theft.
As someone frequently asked to do the same thing...and who has at time asked for the same consideration, this piece holds a lot of truth and is a slice of life that reminds us writers that we're not alone in this, one of the biggest frustrations of our career.
Just look up the classic debacle of Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio and their early submission policy...
With that said, I suppose that Olsen probably wouldn't disagree with Dr. Cole Abaius's title of this article. That was the point, after all, wasn't it?
So, okay, here's the thing. I would ask my dentist for advice, but only about a screenplay and only one about a psycho dentist.
Sometimes people don't know they're being rude. They don't immediately understand that their action is inconsiderate, and no ill will was intended. They just want help. To respond to that person by saying "No I will not read your fuckin' script" is a harsh way of getting your point across, and unnecessary (and no, I am not saying that Olson responded to the person in his story in this manner, I am saying that he is responding to any person that wants to give him their material going forward). Olson's word choice was completely intentional, and if the person who is to give him a script in the future and asked him to read it is an asshole, then yes Olson is also an asshole for his crude response.
You are not rude for denying a homeless person money if they ask you, you are rude if they politely come up to you and you say "get the fuck away from me." If you think the entire thing is hypothetical, it's not. Olson is addressing everyone out there that was intending to send him something directly, and responded with "I will not read your fuckin' script."
Lastly, he does state in his piece that the person in the situation that gives him the script is the dick (yes, "the" dick as in there can be only one dick in the situation), and therefore claims that his response - no matter what - relinquishes him from also being a dick, which is not true. Just because you have a valid or noble reason for responding negatively does not mean you are not a dick and can say whatever the hell you want and not be a dick.
All of the talk about a writer's time, validating your experience in the industry, and the agreements of other writers about Olson's piece is completely inconsequential to the article on this site. Olson is not an asshole because he won't read your script, he's an asshole because he won't read your FUCKIN' script and thinks that asking him to do so frees him from also being an asshole no matter what angry, hateful, or demeaning way he chooses to respond.
As if to dangerously tiptoe back out into swarmed waters, I also don't understand why people think Olson has achieved something with his article.
Has it helped budding screenwriters? No. Perhaps it's helped them know of one person not to approach with their work, but according to the article itself, the people who would annoyingly put someone in that position are most likely not cut out for writing anyway. So he's really just speaking to people he doesn't think will make it as writers. John Scalzi has a much better piece that, while snarky, still offers some great tips for writers.
Olson's piece has rallied a group that didn't necessarily need rallying either. Has he drawn a line in the sand? Apparently. But I'm not sure what that's worth.
And if his goal was to try to gain more respect for the profession, he's done so with the shrewdness of a fat American complaining about how hungry he is in front of a starving kid from Darfur.
I will say that he's started a discussion, but if this line of discussion on this site is any indication, it's mostly just two sides talking past each other. I think we'll all be happier in a week when we can forget about this and go back to how things were in the first place.
And it would’ve been a boring advice column, published in a neophyte-friendly rag like Creative Screenwriter and not the Village Voice, that wouldn’t have garnered near the same the amount of attention.
That Olson’s piece was so polarizing, and has become talked/Twittered about as much as it has, proves that his approach was the correct one. He knew what he was doing. He knew half the people reading it would think he was an asshole, the other half a hero.
And as you’ve pointed out: There’s already a John August out there. There’s already the nice guy screenwriter doling out free advice and pats on the head. But unfortunately he’s created the illusion that every writer is like that, or at least should be. Olson’s approach is that of the tough curmudgeonly college prof who builds you up only after tearing you down; who expects the same standards from you as s/he would any other professional. In my experience, those are the sorts of mentors with something real to offer. The pats on the head are good for the ego, but not so much for the craft. The best mentors are the ones who make you never want to write again. If you do it anyway, you’re probably a writer.
I don't think anyone perceives John August as the norm, nor expects every other writer to do as he does. What people should expect from others is common decency. If you can't, or simply do not want to help me, fine. Wonderful. I understand. If I ask you to lend me a hand, and you tell me to "fuck off," then yes, you just said something that makes me view you as an asshole.
Again, I don't know what Josh Olson's intentions were, but judging by the tone of his article I took it as he is telling aspiring writers that he will not read their fucking scripts, and he does not want to be bothered by it. If due to his childishness people come out of the woodworks specifically to bug him and ask to read their scripts, then I'd say his approach was not the right one.
What Olson did is in no way like that of a tough college professor. The professor would read your stuff specifically to tear you down, Olson would just tell you to fuck off. He's not going to make anyone want to stop writing, just stop pestering.
The reason that other writers are praising him right now is because they will reap the benefits of his assholishness and not come off as the bad guy. Maybe that was Olson's intention. Maybe he wanted to sacrifice his own well-being to help other writers not have to deal with it as much. Could be.
It could also be that he didn't think of that, and is just an asshole.
"No, Walter, you're not wrong. You're just an asshole."
It takes effort to constructively criticize, but it's worth it for both critic and writer and hell, civilization.
This crazy girl is claiming that you plagiarized her post about the article. You might want to take this up with either her or your attorney, as accusations of plagiarism - even when they're this silly - are very serious, and can come back to bite you in the ass.
http://www.halfcute.com/2009/09/its-flattering-...
She's really way out of line.
Olsen occurs as an emmotionally immature twit who is unable to navigate even the most basic social interactions. Were a waitress to ask him if he was finished with his meal, I imagine Olsen would be so wrapped up in the pressure he believes the waitress is putting on him to hurry up and get out that he'd put his paws down in a protective stance around his food and lash out at the poor waitress like an angry rabid beaver. Then he'd post a food critic review of how horrible and overbearing the waitstaff is at this restaurant.
Basic social skills would resolve this problem: Are you finished eating? Not yet. Would you read my script? No, thank you.
I'd say Olsen's reaction is something I'd expect out of people who have to wear helmets to keep from injuring themselves, but the people I've met who actually wear such helmets were usually ashamed of their behaviour once they recover. Olsen has withdrawn and allowed similarly helmeted, emotionally stunted people to defend his behaviour as "satire".
No, that was a tantrum.
" as long as they write and complete their script or novel, their film book or an acting gig, whether it's good or bad, they ARE writers, filmmakers and actors and not wannabes. "
You couldn't be more insulting to the people who hold those jobs if you tried. Those are all highly skilled professions that take years to master. If you actually did any of those things for a living, you'd grasp how completely rude and ignorant that comment is. The whole point of Olson's piece is to call people like you out on your lack of respect for professionals. Just because you want to be a writer or an actor or a filmmaker doesn't make you one. Neither does typing some words on a page, taking a picture, or reciting your favorite lines from Chasing Amy in your living room. Have some respect.
Josh Olsen's an asshole, blah blah blah.
Get out of the business if you can't handle it.
And it sucked. Not normal Hoover-type sucked, I'm talking Dyson-type sucked. It was full of cliches and topical references that were guaranteed to be dated by the time the movie was finished, never mind released. So I wrote notes. I went page by soul-sucking page and wrote intelligent, informed, constructive notes. I met with him later that week and went over every one of them with him, along with suggestions to improve the script, and he completely blew me off. Then, to add insult to ignorance, he gives me an early call that weekend and never shows up to shoot. I wouldn't piss on that guy if he was on fire now.
I have another friend who wants to produce and he keeps sending me these scripts that he swears have backing, and the producer wants "notes" on them. So I read these things (although now I insist on a synopsis) and he sends me both. Well, it HAD to be written with voice-recognition software because it made absolutely no sense whatsoever and no human being can mangle the English language the way it was done in this synopsis. So after torturing myself trying to decode it, I tossed it aside and read the script. It started out okay but soon veered off into the third bardo and made even less sense than the synopsis. A couple of days later, I get on a conference call with my friend and the producer who was pushing the script, who tells me (what else?) to "be brutally honest" on whether or not I can doctor the script. So I told him the best way to doctor that particular script was to euthanize it as quickly as possible. Our conversation petered out rather quickly after that.
The problem here is that everyone really does think they can write a screenplay, even more so if they buy Final Draft, but the fact of the matter is this: buying a hammer doesn't make you a carpenter. I sympathize with Olsen, but there are better ways of refusing. I don't mind doing favors for my friends or acquaintences, but it's getting to a point where I'm going to draw the line. The sad fact is that for every writer who will actually take your advice to heart and learn from what you say, there are a thousand that will get pissed off because you can't see the inherent genius in the mis-formatted pile of shit they give you.
It's hard to give people honest criticism, and it's something I'm (rather alarmingly) known for around the circle of filmmakers I work with, but I'll do it and I won't hold back. I try to take the feelings of whoever I'm giving this opinon to into consideration, but every once in a while you run into someone who is so blind to their own lack of talent that patience just runs out and you have to take drastic measures. If that makes me an asshole in their eyes, well, I just have to live with it. Life goes on.
The guy who asked him for the free read had no excuse for his behavior, and it's obvious that Olson's article is meant to make that point clearly to people like "Dr" Abaius who obviously don't understand it.
Most writers who are serious don't do what this person did. They don't corner people they barely know and put them on the spot to read their work. The guy who asked was rude. Cole Abaius is rude. The people who are attacking Olson for the article are rude. But Olson was extremely polite to this guy, and it's pathetic to see amateurs like Abaius expressing such ignorant rage, rather than learning something useful from this. Olson did you a service.
And frankly, who are you all to judge? All this whining seems to come from a bias of "I need a break, and people should be more nice in Hollywood." Frankly there is a ton of dreck in the entertainment industry, I've worked in it for over 10 years. If you were subject to a non-stop barrage of it daily, like Olson, you'd be a bit irritated as well.
Keep in mind Olson has been writing for about 20 years. He is a professional, and has earned the right to be contemptuous of those that assume they can just waltz in one year after graduating from Columbia's Film program and assume they're the next hot shit. I can't tell you how many arrogant and misguided young people flood this industry with their demand to be heard. Barely one percent have the talent to deserve it. The rest are just the chaff, struggling for a few years, railing against "assholes" like Olson, and then finding a more suitable outlet for the passions/hobbies.
If you're so offended by Olson's post then frankly you haven't yet earned the right to be....
I personally think its hilarious, and is intended to be for those of us who have lived it.