So, a bit of dust-up overseas. Cambridge professor of German literature Andrew Webber supposedly asked novelist Philip Hensher to write the introduction to his new book on Berlin writers for free. Hensher refused and complained publicly about it. Hensher on Webber:

He’s written a [previous] book about writers in Berlin during the 20th century, but how does he think that today’s writers make a living? It shows a total lack of support for how writers can live. I’m not just saying it for my sake: we’re creating a world where we’re making it impossible for writers to make a living.

Webber first called Hensher “priggish and ungracious” on Facebook, but now he has responded that no, he didn’t ask Hensher to write “for nothing”:

First, the – polite and friendly – invitation to Philip Hensher to contribute a short foreword to an academic book that I am editing was not ‘for nothing’, but offered an, albeit modest, compensation for his time in the form of books. This may not be payment in cash, but neither is it “nothing” (this, in the context of a debate about the value put upon writing).

Second, it was not the rejection of my invitation that I found “improper”, but the manner in which it was written. I, of course, respect the prerogative of writers to decline to engage in this kind of work when they deem it not worth their while; and I also see the value of the broader debate around these issues. However, that debate should be conducted in an informed and balanced way – in particular when it rises above the free-for-all of Twitter to reporting in a respected newspaper.

Webber goes on to say that academics write for free all the time so as to contribute “to the common good of our culture,” implying that maybe Hensher should lighten up.

Whether or not Webber offered Hensher money, his remark that academics write for free to contribute to society is more than a little misleading. It’s true that academics rarely get paid for writing books and never (to my knowledge) for refereed journal articles, but this does not mean that their writing is without remuneration. Books and articles can be converted into promotions (from associate to full professor, or, if the publications are numerous and prestigious enough, from full to endowed professor), which usually come with a bump in pay.

Even professors (and very good ones, mind you) who for whatever reason are unable to convert publications into a higher salary do not think first and always of contributing to “the common good.” They are human, after all, and fame’s song is ever enchanting. This is not to say that the common good has nothing to do with why professors write, but I think it is much less of a motivation than what Webber implies.