The Author’s Dilemma
The Prisoner’s dilemma, cut for writers; the burden of newborn writers and how it should affect their work.
It’s commonplace to think that the human nature is structured in such a way, that a person will, at least once in their life, attempt to compose a text, regarding anything from Sciences and social issues, to their utmost personal and deep thoughts and experiences. Some of those individuals come to realise that this natural inclination is something they find interesting enough to repeat more than once. Hence, a writer is born.
Admirers of Philosophy, Sociology, or Economics, may have unconsciously connected this piece’s title with another — much more established — theory, utilised and explained by both its original creators and distinguished personalities of the aforementioned fields today — a characteristic example of the latter is the recent work of Mervyn King, former Governor of The Bank of England, “The End of Alchemy”. It’s no other than the prisoner’s dilemma. The resemblance that the title bears to this game theory, as it’s referred to, is no coincidence. The game’s rules indicate that, when interrogated, prisoner A and prisoner B can do, and suffer, one of the following:
i. A and B both betray each other; each serves 2 years.
ii. A betrays B but B says nothing; A is freed, B serves 3 years.
iii. A and B both remain silent; Each serves only 1 year
The Prisoner’s dilemma proves how two sides A and B can benefit much more if they both act not in their own best interest, but instead, collaborate. In short, it’s an argument for cooperation. What in this piece is referred to as author’s dilemma has a somewhat similar meaning, but is, of course, focused on the standards of writers, rather than modern-day prisoners. The Auhor’s dilemma, as in the Prisoner’s, presents two sides. However, they don’t infer to two different entities but to two sides of the same individual; the author. Side A could be labeled “Write”, as the egoistic, self-interested side of writing, that encourages the writer to simply compose first and think of what they are actually composing, second. Side B could be called “Think” and would include the prerequisite procedures that occur prior to writing, such as thinking, studying, reading, etc.The author, then, also has a set of outcomes to choose from:
i. Write betrays Think; Write pushes the Author to uncontrolled writing, resulting in texts either unreadable, or content-wise, poor.
ii. Think betrays Write; Think pushes the Author to spend all their time in theoretical preparation, never utilising or expanding on what they’ve learnt.
iii. Write and Think collaborate; the Author simultaneously acquires knowledge and cultivates their writing talent, steadily forming into a true Author.
Note how the Author’s Dilemma, in contrast with the Prisoner’s, is more a structure of balance, than of collaboration. Writers need balance in their life, as well as in their work, in order for both to be viable and lively.
Addicting Cyber-Ease
Nowadays, the most common cases are either case I. or case II., both of which represent the extreme. But if one only embraces a particular side, it should be nigh-on impossible for them to mature as writers without embracing the other side as well.
The modern trend errs on the side of embracing Write instead of Think and all the new means of communication and social networking prove exactly why. Understanding the power of the networking tools at their disposal — mainly, the web —, people believe that those alone are enough to make them good authors, and thus, start writing, uncontrolled (Write betrays Think). Most of the people who utilise those tools do so passively, hardly allowing any room for Think. Simply put, just because of how directly they can publish and share their work, they think that they must publish them.
Needless to say, this unbalanced dynamic is harming the authors’ mental consistency, which, in turn, harms their productivity. Just like a machine that needs fuel, an author needs Think, so to operate. If a certain fuel is in deficit, the machine, naturally, underperforms.
Struggles of the Conventional
Before the tech boom, “knowledge” was much harder to acquire and this rarity in itself was one reason why people didn’t care that much about Write, but more about Think, since the latter seemed to them much more unique than the former. Another reason why Think had prevailed in older times was, evidently, the lack of technological background to allow for easy sharing and networking of works. One needn’t go too far to confirm this; most works that were published had either been recognised as Academically precious and were therefore published as part of Universities’ archives, or had been edited by famous publications that had the ability to mass-print daily or weekly newspapers. There were, of course, many other ways of publishing one’s works, only most of them would never reach an audience as large as that of the aforementioned publishing means.
Frankly, the world wasn’t perfect back then, either. Surely, knowledge and data were much more valued due to how much harder they were to come by. But not only did that world suffer from a surplus of theoretical stimuli that had nowhere to be invested in and further develop, but was also burdened by an intense lack of interconnectivity that made our world quite restricted and reluctant to granting recognition to particular works, when it was due.
As it’s evident, almost at all times, the authors of our world have been shifting from one extreme, to the other, thus losing at the game of the author’s dilemma. This lack of balance is ought to stop, in order to benefit as much as possible from the Write-Think dynamic. Specifically in our times, the trend points towards a passive, text-composing addiction that can easily make authors forget what they are writing about, as they are caught up in the mesmerising ease of sharing their texts with the word, through the web, thus the means out-weights the cause. In order to balance out this extreme, modern-day writers would be well-advised to pause their writing spree and catch up to their studies and readings. Only then, will they truly prevail over the extremes that have laid on their shoulders from the day the human carved their first ever symbol on their stone walls.
