Martin Cullen has cut funding to two Writer's Centres.

[Preacher Casey]

Why should taxpayers fund this kind of thing. Go operate in the real World. The country is broke.

[goosebump]

The Arts, often thrive in a bad times, think of the Commitments in recession bleak Dublin of the 80s.

I hate to break it to you, but the Commitments were a fictional band.

[Christine Murray]

I hate to break it to you, but the Commitments were a fictional band.

hmmmmmmmmm.

as I said here before, the centres involved in these rows provide real resources unlike the namby-pamby ghost-writers and fictional novelists
who populate the FF ligger brigade.

[donalmc]

What saddens me about this is that most people have no appreciation about how difficult it is to be a writer let alone get a publishing deal. Sometimes writers, published or otherwise, need resources. Many genuinely good Irish writers have had to find success outside Ireland first. Then perhaps the small clique of soi-disant literary experts who have never published anything worth reading in their lives might acknowledge them. Any Irish writer who has had to go through that will have a finely tempered cynicism about Irish literature and the illiterati.

Regards...jmcc

And you should get taxpayer funds because being a writer is hard?

Look around - lots of people and areas need resources; get in the queue.

[jmcc]

And you should get taxpayer funds because being a writer is hard?

No. I have not asked for taxpayer funds for being a writer. The way I see it is that it is an investment - some of these writers may be successful and will create work (publishing and promotion) and profit. The majority won't. But I would prefer to see some poor bloody writer get assistance than seeing a parasite politician with his snout in the public purse getting money for nothing. So would you prefer to fund a parasite politician's expenses or some writer who may be successful?

Regards...jmcc

[donalmc]

No. I have not asked for taxpayer funds for being a writer. The way I see it is that it is an investment - some of these writers may be successful and will create work (publishing and promotion) and profit. The majority won't. But I would prefer to see some poor bloody writer get assistance than seeing a parasite politician with his snout in the public purse getting money for nothing. So would you prefer to fund a parasite politician's expenses or some writer who may be successful?

Regards...jmcc

If it's a true investment, with a potential of profit, then a cost-benefit analysis should be made. You can't make an investment argument and not accept that.

RE your last question, it's not actually an either/or scenario.

I would prefer to see State funds being spent in the most efficient manner possible.

Btw, in the good times I actually have no problem with the State setting aside a certain proportion of fund for supporting the arts.

[jmcc]

If it's a true investment, with a potential of profit, then a cost-benefit analysis should be made. You can't make an investment argument and not accept that.

The best people for that decision are publishers. All publishing with an unknown author is a gamble but there is a lot of help out there and Publishing On Demand makes it a far less risky option these days. It is the intangible element of crafting and support that is often lacking.

Btw, in the good times I actually have no problem with the State setting aside a certain proportion of fund for supporting the arts.

But in a recession, it becomes an easy target. That's the problem.

Regards...jmcc

[donalmc]

The best people for that decision are publishers. All publishing with an unknown author is a gamble but there is a lot of help out there and Publishing On Demand makes it a far less risky option these days. It is the intangible element of crafting and support that is often lacking.

That's sounds like an argument for withdrawing support. How do we decide what intangibles to spend our money on?

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Why should taxpayers fund this kind of thing. Go operate in the real World. The country is broke.

Why should single people fund other people's children via their taxes? Single people should not be charged for other people's lifestyle decisions.

See where this is going?

[donalmc]

Why should single people fund other people's children via their taxes? Single people should not be charged for other people's lifestyle decisions.

See where this is going?

Single people were children once.