This is a series of articles I've written about writing, specifically about the problems faced by (a) the new writer who isn't selling enough work yet to make a living or (b) the older writer who isn't selling as much as they used to. To read other installments, click here.

---

We've been talking about becoming (or remaining) a professional writer and I plumb forgot to give what I consider an important definition of a Professional Writer.  There are many but I think this one is key to understanding why you get work or don't get work.  Here it is, set off with special margins to make it seem even more significant…

A Professional Writer is someone whose work is purchased, sometimes by total strangers, for professional rates or who is hired for professional rates, and this happens largely because of the merits of the writer's own work.

Okay, now: Before you start asking what "professional rates" are, that's easy.  It's roughly what other Professional Writers are receiving for work of roughly the same value to the same employers or purchasers or comparable buyers.  There are dollar figures determined by the free market, sometimes with the help of a union or other professional organization, that are more or less standard.  At some comic book companies, for example, there's a beginner's page rate and if you're a beginner, that's the minimum you should probably get.

Be wary of an offer of much less. There are folks who think that as a trade-off for giving you an important break, you should work for less or even nothing. In some (not all) situations, that may not be the worst trade-off in the world…but don't do much of that, don't do it in a situation where they could pay you professional rates and just don't want to, and remember that you're not really a pro until you're getting pro money.

There are times you'll want to work for free or close to free because the project has a special value to you. For instance, I often contribute — pro bono — to magazines and projects that I feel further expand what we know about the history of some area that interests me like comic books or comedians…but I don't do that to promote myself. That's different. Or, sans pay, I write forewords for books that I want to see reach a wide market.

The kind of work you do to earn a living…that oughta pay. It doesn't have to pay top money if you're new but it should pay something that isn't insulting.

And note the part above where we consider the value of that work to the buyer.  If you sell a 10,000 word short story to some magazine, that doesn't mean you have to get or will get the same money that they paid Stephen King for his 10,000 word short story in the same issue.  His name on the cover probably has a lot more value to them than yours does…now.  Later, when the world discovers you're a much better writer than he is, you should probably get more than he does.

For now though, you should be paid at the minimum whatever professional rates are for that engagement…or comparable engagements elsewhere.  In an upcoming installment, we'll discuss why that's important for reasons other than getting as much money as you can get.  (Hint: It also has a lot to do with how you and your work are treated.)

So now let's focus on two aspects of the above definition: "total strangers" and "the merits of the writer's own work."

An awful lot of writers get their first break or their big break because they know someone — a relative, a guy they went to high school with, whatever. That's a great boost for the writer but it only goes so far. There's probably a limit on how much work that friend or relative can give you so to have a long career, you have to convince some people outside your family or your circle of acquaintances that you can write.

I feel so strongly about this that when I've been in a position to hire writers or actors, I follow the following policy: I will give someone their first job but not their second. This is, of course, assuming I think they're good enough to warrant that first job. I tell them, "Okay, you have one credit. Now, go out and impress someone else and get another one." If they can't, they aren't going to have much of a career.

Please do not think I'm saying you shouldn't work over and over for or with the same people. If you're any good, they will want to work with you again…and again and again and many more agains.  And if they treat you right, you'll want to work for them for many agains. But the core of a career is that you impress people who have no other reason to work with you other than they think what you produce is good enough to publish or produce. They read something you've written and say, "Hey, this guy's good" or at least, "Hey, we can use this!"

Or they meet you and hear some ideas or a pitch or something that makes them think you're good enough. You need the ability to do that because the producers and editors change over time…and if you got in because of a relative or a personal connection, you're likely to run out of relatives and personal connections after a while.

By the same token, if you aren't selling your work, don't start believing that the game is rigged because you're "on the outside" and don't have any family members or friends who can toss you a writing job. There are writers who enjoy some success for a time because of "ins" of that nature but a real career depends on being able to cultivate new "ins." This brings me to a question I've received in various forms many times since I began this series. Here's one form of it, cut-'n'-pasted from the most recent e-mail of this kind…

Isn't it all a matter of who you know? You know an awful lot of people and you've worked a lot. Isn't that what it's all about? You hire someone on one project and then they hire you on their project? Isn't that how it works?

No, at least in my experience, that's not how it works. I'll explain why in our next installment.

Ron Mark reports on what's up with O.J. Simpson since he was released from prison. It is amazing to hear that this man still has friends and that there are places where is treated like a true celebrity. Some people forget (or are too young to be aware) that there was a mountain of evidence that he was guilty of killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson…and that neither he nor any of his defenders ever offered even a semi-credible theory as to who committed that double murder if he didn't.

Back here, I told you that Lewis Black was doing a show at Largo at the Coronet on February 1. It's a rare opportunity to see a great comedian in a small theater at a small price — and guess what! It's sold out!

But guess what else! They've added another show on January 31st! It too will sell out so if you want to see my favorite monologist relatively up close and personal, get tix now!

You may have seen Nathan Mathis on the news. He was the gentleman in Alabama who was out protesting Judge Roy Moore with a sign that told his own, tragic story about a gay daughter who'd taken her own life. Ellen DeGeneres had him on the other day and this video will make you very hopeful that people who hate LGBT folks can see the error of their ways…

Let's talk about all these women who claim Donald Trump grabbed them, propositioned them or kissed them without their permission — in other words, did the kind of things he bragged about doing on that Access Hollywood video. He insists he never met any of them…and you get the feeling that any day now, this guy's going to start swearing he never met Michael Flynn or Jared Kushner. I doubt many (if any) of Trump's most fervent supporters really believe he never met or groped any of the women but they'll say they do because he's their boy at the moment.

Depending on what source you listen to, there seem to be seventeen, eighteen, nineteen or twenty women. Politifact says seventeen and here, they run down the evidence that our current Oval Office occupant actually met each one of them. Their conclusion?

If someone appeared on The Apprentice, had their picture taken with Trump, interviewed him, or had a relative confirm their story, it seems likely that at the very least Trump had met them. By that yardstick, Trump verifiably knew or met eight of the 16 accusers. It's likely that all of the beauty pageant contestants also meet that standard, but we haven't seen pictures of them standing side-by-side with Trump. By no means can Trump claim to not know or have met all of the women who have talked about his sexual transgressions.

At the risk of siding with Donald Trump — which is becoming increasingly dangerous in this world — I'm going to take issue with one point in the above. I think he probably met and did just what he's accused of doing with each of them…and it wouldn't surprise me if there's a hundred-plus more other ladies with similar experiences. But having your photo taken with someone, especially in a public place, is proof of only having "met" them in only the most superficial sense.

Every celebrity I've ever known has their picture taken with countless fans and ultra-casual acquaintances. Heck, I'm about ten-zillionth as famous as Donald J. Trump was before he dove into the political arena and I have people I don't really know come up to me at comic book conventions and ask, "Can I get a picture?" In an era where almost everyone goes everywhere with a camera in their phone, it happens all the time. It also happens when people don't formally pose.

Picking one example out of hundreds I could cite: Back in the seventies, I was present for one of those Battle of the Network Stars shows and somewhere here, I have news photos that were taken at the time of me talking with or standing next to Telly Savalas and Sonny Bono and Dan "Grizzly Adams" Haggerty and several others with whom I had only the briefest contact.

There were pics I was in with O.J. Simpson and Bruce Jenner from back when it was pretty cool to have your picture with O.J. Simpson or Bruce Jenner. The National Enquirer even printed a photo of me sitting on the ABC bench next to Charlie's Angels star Jaclyn Smith and captioned it to suggest I might be a new beau.

None of those people really "met" me. Most never heard my name or if they did, had no reason to remember it ten minutes later. If I later accused one of them of a crime and he or she said they'd never met me, they would not be lying. They'd be wrong in a very technical, understandable sense but they would not be lying.

At that event, I was actually introduced to and spent a little time talking with Howard Cosell, who was one of the hosts. A year or two later, I was introduced to him at another function and he not only didn't remember me, he didn't remember even hosting that TV special. He could have passed a polygraph, I am sure. He was wrong but he was not lying.

This is not much of a defense of Donald Trump, especially since I suspect all his accusers are not only not lying but that they're recalling a bad experience that they'd forget if only they could. I just think that "Look, there's a photo of her with Donald Trump" is not by itself proof of anything except that the lady once had her photo taken with Donald Trump. And he does seem like the guy who not only wouldn't remember someone's name, he might not even bother to learn it in the first place.

Bob Givens got out of high school in 1936. In 1937, he went to work for the Walt Disney Studio, mostly as animation checker on Donald Duck cartoons and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In 1940, he moved over to the Warner Brothers cartoon studio where one of his first jobs was doing the redesign of a rabbit character who would henceforth be known as Bugs Bunny.

In 1942, he was drafted into the army and spent most of his tour of duty working on military training films with animation director Rudolph Ising. After the war, he returned to Warner Brothers working for all their directors but mainly as a layout artist for Robert McKimson and Chuck Jones. He also began moonlighting for Western Publishing, drawing for their childrens books and comic book line.

In the decades that followed, he worked on and off for Warners but could occasionally be found at the U.P.A. studio, Jack Kinney's studio, Hanna-Barbera, DePatie-Freleng, Filmation, Film Roman and maybe a few other places. He more or less retired from working in animation around the start of the twenty-first century but taught well into his nineties. As you can see, he had what may well be the most impressive résumé in the history of the cartoon business.

Robert Givens died yesterday less than three months before he would have celebrated his hundredth birthday. We lost not only an important figure in the world of animation but a much-loved, unanimously-respected man who was always willing to talk to anyone about his work and to encourage others.

I was honored to talk with him now and then when he worked on Garfield and Friends, and to be invited to participate in a gang interview of him on the Disney lot last April. He was an amazing man.

You all know about Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, the theatrical charity that helps men, women and children across the nation coping with not just AIDS but a raft of other illnesses and problems. BC/EFA is a worthy cause and they also throw the best fund-raising events. One of the best makes me wish I was in New York the first week of each December. That's their Gypsy of the Year show where the casts of current and recent Broadway shows perform. Sometimes, they do lovely, serious numbers and sometimes, they spoof each other and themselves.

This year's ceremony was held December 4 and 5, and it raised a record-breaking $5,609,211 for the cause. One of the most popular presentations was by the cast of the Cats revival which closes New Year's Eve at the Neil Simon Theater. They did…well, here. I'll let you see what they did…

• Since Net Neutrality has been repealed, can we all pay our Internet Service Providers to slow down Donald Trump's tweets to, say, one a year?

• Since Net Neutrality has been repealed, can I pay extra to have my Internet Service Provider hurry up Roy Moore's concession speech?

• Since Net Neutrality has been repealed, your Internet Service Provider will be charging you triple to stream any movie that does not have Nicholas Cage in it. Could be a bargain.

• Since Net Neutrality has been repealed, your Internet Service Provider will be charging you $84 to read this tweet. Hope you think it's worth it.

If you go to shows in Manhattan, this might be a handy page to bookmark. It's the seating charts for all the theaters in the Broadway area.

The magazine known as MAD started at about the same time I did.  Maybe that's why I've always had a tremendous fondness for it.  I have a complete collection in the next room and it's one of the last things I would ever part with.

Its founding editor in 1952 was Harvey Kurtzman and he departed in 1956, replaced by Al Feldstein who ran things there until 1984.  For most of the time, he was aided by a clever gent named Nick Meglin.  As I became a world-class expert on the magazine, I came to realize that a lot of the sense of humor I loved in MAD during the Feldstein years was Nick Meglin's sense of humor.

When Feldstein retired, publisher William M. Gaines split the editor job between Meglin and assistant editor John Ficarra.  Meglin retired in 2004 and Ficarra has had the position all to himself since then.  Earlier this year, it was announced that after 65 years, MAD would no longer be edited out of an office in New York.  It would move, as the rest of DC Comics has, to Burbank, California, where it would have a new editorial staff headed by Bill Morrison.  I know (or knew) all these men and respect every one of them.

Morrison and his crew are assembling their first issue, which will be #551.  It will feature many of the longtime MAD contributors (Sergio Aragonés, Al Jaffee, Dick DeBartolo, et al) and many new folks.  Meanwhile in Manhattan, Ficarra and his staff are about to send #550 off to press, which they are doing this week even as they clean out their offices.  There's a certain sadness there but they've had a good run with much to be proud of.

The writing especially has been very sharp the last decade or so, hindered mainly by a basic reality of production.  Humor in this country has grown more topical and immediate in the Internet Age.  When something happens in the news at Noon, we can start reading jokes about it on Twitter well before 12:15 and we can see more that night on Colbert, Meyers, Fallon, The Daily Show, etc.  MAD can post something on its website rapidly (and does) but the actual magazine takes weeks to print and distribute.  Thus, the topical humor in it just ain't that topical.

That's hurt sales as has the simple deterioration of the magazine marketplace.  I wonder if there's a single periodical that's been around 20+ years that's selling anything close to what it did back then.  Playboy, TV Guide, Newsweek…they're all way, way down from their old circulation figures and there are fewer and fewer newsracks around.

One of the few upticks in sales came when they began targeting Donald J. Trump, who is becoming as much their cover boy as Alfred E. Neuman.  Just as Trump-bashing upped the tune-in for late night TV and Stephen Colbert especially, ridiculing Donald has helped MAD tremendously.

But that of course is a short-term boost.  I don't know what the new masters of MAD have in mind for it except surely it involves finding ways to exploit its name and style of humor in multimedia ways.  I love it as a magazine but I don't see that as a bad thing at all.  I also know Bill Morrison well.  He's a bright, talented guy with a great track record for working with others, and a deep understanding and knowledge of the institution's heritage.

I'm just sorry to see Ficarra and his Usual Gang of Idiots — Sam Viviano, Ryan Flanders, Joe Raiola, Patty Dwyer, Charlie Kadau, Dave Croatto, Jacob Lambert and all the rest — outside the MAD loop. I like John tremendously but I told him long ago that MAD is precious to me in many ways. If I ever thought he was not doing maintaining its high standards, I would rip him a new one on this blog and elsewhere, treating him even worse than he treats Trump. I am so glad that was never necessary. Kurtzman, Feldstein, Meglin and Ficarra all kept MAD the best humor magazine that's ever existed and I'm sure Bill Morrison will, too.

Because if he doesn't, he's in a lot of trouble.

In the words of Donald Trump, let's go to the links…

• USA Today says Trump is "not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush."
• Matt Yglesias has a takeaway from the election last night: "The GOP agenda is toxically unpopular." He also notes that "Trump's net approval rating is lower today than it was for any previous president on record at this point in his term, and, remarkably, that's been true for every day of his presidency."
• But Ezra Klein feels the way I do; that it's frightening how close Moore came to becoming a Senator and that so many Americans will disbelieve or ignore evidence if their gut tells them to vote for a guy.
• Ron Faucheux has seven lessons that can be learned from last night. I agree with all seven.
• Nate Silver thinks what happened last night is not a fluke. And he draws some interesting comparisons between Democrat Doug Jones grabbing Jeff Sessions' Senate seat in Alabama and when Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts.
• Jonathan Chait believes the Mueller investigation is in serious danger.
• But Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux believes that even if Trump fires Meuller, it will not stop the investigation. We link, you decide.

If Roy Moore had triumphed last night, he'd be all over the place today saying it was God's will, God had mandated his win, God wanted his agenda to succeed. Apparently, the opposite is not true.

A lot of Democrats are turning cartwheels tonight over the victory Doug Jones scored over Roy Moore for the Senate seat for Alabama. And it's true Democrats have hit on a strategy for winning elections but, alas, it hinges on Republicans nominating men with perverse sexual histories that are exposed, and then the Republican has to give lame, contradictory accounts of what really happened. I don't know how often they can count on that happening.