In 1978, when she was eighteen years old and living, with the rest of the country, through an economic crisis whose depths would be unmatched until our current one, Dolly Freed published a paean to self-sufficiency. Possum Living: How to live well without a job and with almost no money was a how-to manual in narrative form, based on the lifestyle Freed and her father had cultivated while living in happy frugality in rural Pennsylvania. It advised readers on such budget-aiding practices as clothes-mending, vegetable-pickling, and discount home-purchasing (through, in particular, foreclosed-upon houses). It provided recipes for simple, homegrown meals. It encouraged people, basically, to take their economic situations into their own hands.
It was, in other words, the right book at the right time. And it won Freed a Fifteen Minutes that lasted longer than most. After Possum Living’s release, Freed-centered stories appeared in The New York Times, Seventeen magazine, and other national outlets, and Freed herself appeared on The Merv Griffin Show. An award-winning short documentary was produced about her daily life.
And then: Freed disappeared from public view. She hadn’t dropped out of society altogether—or died, as some Possum fans speculated—but rather did something perhaps more surprising: she went mainstream. She got married. She moved to Texas. She got a job—as an aerospace engineer, no less. At NASA, no less.
“We aren’t living this way for ideological reasons, as people sometimes suppose,” Freed had written, about herself and her father, in Possum Living. “We aren’t a couple of Thoreaus mooning about on Walden Pond here…. We live this way for a very simple reason: It’s easier to learn to do without some of the things that money can buy than to earn the money to buy them.”
Its relevance (perhaps) renewed, Possum Living will be officially re-released, in a revised edition, tomorrow. And Freed, having found a balance, it seems, between the rugged Possum life and the typical American commercialism, is now breaking her thirty-plus year reclusiveness. (To an extent, that is: “Dolly Freed” is a pseudonym.) The best evidence of her return to public life being “Finding Dolly Freed,” a rich and strikingly intimate portrait of Freed’s life and philosophy of living.
The piece, as a specimen of long-form narrative, is 6,000 words’ worth of the kind of deep reporting and lush prose that generally characterize Magazine Writing at Its Best—a compelling story that balances detailed idiosyncrasy with broad implication. But while Freed may be able to eschew what she calls “the money economy,” working journalists, generally speaking, are not. Freed’s story took time—and, yes, money—to report and produce. Which is why, on that story’s homepage, you’ll find a slight deviation from the standard Magazine Writing at Its Best layout: a sidebar, hued in urgent tones of black and red, its words aimed directly at the reader.
“Finding Dolly Freed” is a piece of independent journalism that cost more than $2,000 to produce.
To help the writer recoup her expenses and perhaps bank a small paycheck, please click here and pay whatever amount you’d like. Think of it as Radiohead journalism. Thank you in advance!
SUPPORT THE JOURNALIST
Click on the box—anywhere on the box—and you’ll be led to a PayPal page. “Feel free to support the cost of this story,” it says. “Details: see ‘About Story’ on author’s website. Thanks!”
The author, in this case, is Paige Williams, a longtime, and decorated, magazine writer. “I’m self-publishing this story,” she writes, “because it had no other home. I wanted it to live in the world, not die in my notebook.” So she reported Freed’s story, independently…got it produced, independently…and now hopes to recoup the expenses of that work, opposite-of-independently: through reader donations. (Thus, “Radiohead Journalism”: named for the pay-what-you-think-our-album’s-worth experiment the rock group undertook a few years ago.)
The story itself, and the SUPPORT THE JOURNALIST button situated next to it, is, in its way, Williams’s own nod toward Possumian self-sufficiency—and away from the increasingly dire straits of the money economy that is the magazine industry. “It was just, you know, ‘I can do it.’”

Interesting. Dolly's dad is somewhere on the Autism scale, I'll bet.
#1 Posted by Chris, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 07:25 PM
The way the CJR piece reads, I would have thought Paige Williams was a national journalist of great repute. Instead, most of her work has been for regional papers and magazines (and her website is full of glowing tributes from professors), so I'm not all that surprised that The New Yorker didn't jump for this.
Yes, she's won awards, etc. but this makes her sound like John McPhee.
Dolly's interesting enough, but eating roadkill seems extreme these days.
#2 Posted by Belinda Gomez, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 07:43 PM
So, "Dolly" is supported by her husband, correct? Hmmm. "Possum Living" seems to mean something rather different, doesn't it?
Enjoyed the story, though.
#3 Posted by Lars, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 07:47 PM
I thought this was an interesting experiment. I especially liked the comparison to Radiohead (the greatest band of the last 20 years - not an opinion - it's a fact!).
I do think the retrospective model has its merits. In the end, just like Spot.Us - I don't think its a silver bullet or THE solution.
While Spot.Us has raised as much as 10k before (and tomorrow we are going to put up our third 10k ambitious sized pitch) - the average pitch, as you note, is several hundred dollars (between 5-7). That can be descent money for some - and chump change for others. All depends on your point of view.
But since it's arguable - I don't think retrospective donations (or prospective) can sustain an entire individuals career.
But just as Radiohead gets kudos - so does Paige. It takes a LONG time to get 1,000 true fans - but if she can do it - she will have something to stand on. Or so says Kevin Kelly (part of the inspiration for Spot.Us is his theory of 1,000 true fans: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php ).
Anyways. Will be interesting to see if more take the plunge or if this is an isolated incident.
#4 Posted by David Cohn, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 11:14 PM
Hi! Fact checking a few comments here ...
1. Radiohead = "greatest band of the 20th." Is a bit of audiosourcing in order?
2. Dolly being "supported" by her husband: I'll ask DF what she thinks of that assessment and get back. I'm sure she'll have an, um, interesting response. "Support" comes in a lot of forms, as I'm learning.
3. "Roadkill seems extreme these days" -- roadkill seems kind of extreme anytime. Unless you're into that kind of thing. I mean if times get tough ...
4. "Most of her work has been for regional papers and magazines..." True, from a staff perspective. All the freelancing has been national. w/r/t The New Yorker, they once bought a piece for Talk of the Town but never ran it, and that's as close as I've ever come, or may ever come, to seeing a word in print there. So, all told, a happy, lucky (but not always happy-go-lucky) mix.
5. "Her website is full of glowing tributes from professors..." Those professors (there are only two, which hardly amounts to "full of") weren't my professors -- they were colleagues of mine at NYU.
6. John McPhee -- if only! If I were John McPhee, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
#5 Posted by Paige Williams, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 12:12 AM
>>>The way the CJR piece reads, I would have thought Paige Williams was a national journalist of great repute. Instead, most of her work has been for regional papers and magazines . . .
Snobby much? There are great journalists working for smaller outlets and lousy ones working for the biggest magazines in the country. You're only as good as your last story, and this story is great. And although I'm suspicious of 'the tin cup model,' it's worth noting that she probably made more on this than she would have from a shorter piece in the Times Styles section . . .
To avoid the conflict of interest inherent in having story subjects donate, why not find a way to enable anonymous contributions?
#6 Posted by Robert Levine, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 03:58 AM
@Belinda Gomez: "Regional papers and magazines" do some excellent work; and even if they didn't, Paige's work for them has been excellent; and even if it hadn't, the story in question, to my mind, would still be excellent. Robert Levine is right on: "You're only as good as your last story, and this story is great."
@Dave Cohn: Thanks for writing. Definitely agree that there's nothing catch-all about the solutions the retrospective funding model offers....and, yes, that it's arguable whether "retrospective donations (or prospective) can sustain an entire individuals career." But. I found the project interesting, and valuable, in the overall New Media Landscape-y context: it's one other solution, along with Spot.us, and Kachingle, and the Rapid News Awards. And, like all those other platforms...it could grow.
@Robert Levine: Thanks for writing. And good idea re: anonymous contributions.
@Paige Williams: Thanks for writing to you, too. I am audiosourcing the Radiohead question as I type this.
#7 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 11:09 AM
Halfway through this, I hit on the multiple awards (& job) the writer has had and thought, "No. Entitled ____"
Although her predicament is timely, her bid for payment made me wonder how she got into this in the first: certainly someone with all this experience would know a brief, graph length PITCH was the way to go. Instead, she set out and followed her bliss. And that's all fine and good except she wants to continue both her accumulation (of mainstream awards, recognition, etc. - and, oh, yes, money) while going commando. Or indie. Or, whatever distorted notion of hip she's cultivated in her head.
There's another irony at work here, too: the writer's chosen topic is a counter-cultural figure who eschews (or, did) consumer culture. Yet, the writer seems clueless as to how topic and act (of writing, publishing) are interrelated.
People have been writing and publishing - yes, in America - for decades, if not centuries. Apparently, this has all happened off the radar of Neiman Fellows who are widely published in magazines supported by de Beers and car company advertising.
Far from seeming like a progressive "solution," the writer's big, though practical on one level, reeks of a certain cluelessness. She went out, & reported this story w/out a contract in hand. Lesson learned. Don't foist bad judgment on the rest of us and try to pass off your depleted checking account on the rest of us. The writer hasn't lost her job, isn't on the verge of (fill in current disaster), she's just a little poorer for the experience. And keen on advertising her stupidity.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.
#8 Posted by Brad, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 12:59 PM
Wow, quite the harsh bunch of critics here in the comments! I say bravo for Paige for giving this funding experiment a shot. I find the criticism that since a bunch of established NY publishers rejected her story it must not be that great to be a false assumption. How many publishers rejected J.K. Rowling's pitch for the Harry Potter series? How many newsrooms rejected applications from journalists who went on to be stars elsewhere?
A couple quick points on retrospective funding:
1. It's probably a dangerous route other than for writers with very big reputations. If Thomas Friedman quit his op-ed gig at NYT and continued writing independently using the retrospective funding model (and other revenue sources like his books, speaking gigs, smart use of social media, etc.), I suspect he'd make a decent living.
2. More likely, the power of the network when applied to retrospective funding will generate more revenue for quality writers. Lyn Headley at UCSD is working on that, and I'm one of those who's volunteered to help out with his exploration.
Traditional publishers can't afford as much for staff or freelancers these days. What the hell's wrong with trying new experiments in crowd-funding now that the Internet affords us a way to target our stories to those most interested in the topic far and wide? What would have been an absurd strategy for attracting money in pre-digital days has potential now. But we've got to try new approaches and experiment.
#9 Posted by Steve Outing, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 06:11 PM
A big w00t to Steve Outing.
"What the hell's wrong with trying new experiments in crowd-funding now that the Internet affords us a way to target our stories to those most interested in the topic far and wide?"
As I say: It is far cheaper and easier to just TRY something online than it is to sit around and debate about whether or not to try it.
Hat continues to be off to Paige.
But the question about Radiohead is not up for debate. It's a fact!
#10 Posted by David Cohn, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 07:49 PM
@Brad: I disagree. Part of the reason I’m intrigued by the idea of retrospective funding in general (in addition to writing about Paige’s project, I’m an advisor for the Rapid News Awards, Lyn Headley’s social-network-based experiment with that funding) is that story pitches, useful though they may be, will never be as useful in determining the success of the final story as…the final story itself.
As a writer, for example, I’ve had countless pieces that seemed like great stories at the idea stage, but that when reported/researched out, didn’t live up to the expectations I’d had for them. And as an editor, I’ve seen stories that ended up vastly different from what their authors had pitched. And that’s to be expected, of course: the whole pitch-first-finish-later approach assumes that the bulk of the reporting will be done after the pitch has been accepted. There’d be a problem if the story didn’t evolve during that process.
But, from the editor’s perspective: the better pitches, generally speaking, are the ones that describe stories whose reporting is mostly completed; and the best pitches, generally speaking, are the ones that describe stories whose reporting is fully completed. That’s because editors are judging the success of a pitch not just on how compelling/detailed/well-written/timely/etc. it is, but also on how much, if accepted, it hews to the final product. ‘The art of the pitch,’ as some become-a-freelancer classes put it, is in that way an art of estimation. The best ones substitute guesswork with real information; but the ‘real information’ takes reporting—which takes time and, often, money to conduct.
Given that, the “brief, graph length PITCH” you advocate is a much more murky proposition than you suggest. Retrospective funding, it seems to me, has some advantages—on a purely pragmatic level—over mags’ current pitch-a-piece-then-let’s-all-hope-for-the-best model. And the Web, as Paige’s project is suggesting, could make it a more widespread reality.
@Steve Outing: Thanks for writing. Great points, all.
A quick point on your Tom Friedman example…I absolutely agree that already-established journalists could implement retrospective funding more easily than the less well-known ones—and, by extension, that a particular journo’s reputation/status/track record affects the value proposition when it comes to the to-donate-or-not-to-donate question. Were Glenn Greenwald to go rogue, cut his ties with Salon, and implement a Radiohead-like funding option for readers…dude could make a killing.
But I’d add: it could also go the other way. Because the retrospective approach puts the emphasis, actually, more on the product than the process of journalism…it also emphasizes the specific work itself over the more general identity of the author. If some guy I’d never heard of were to write an excellent piece that informed/inspired me in some way, I’d be happy to help fund it; if an author I normally enjoy writes a crappy piece, however…not so much.
For magazines, an author’s identity can—and, in some ways, must—come to bear on decisions about what content gets published in the first place. That’s why we so often hear phrases like “make a name for yourself” in the industry, why Mediabistro has courses with titles like "Breaking into Magazine Writing,” why magazine writers tend to be, as a group, so fond of “networking”: to mags, the author’s identity matters. A lot. To the extent that, in the case of the major mags, anyway, having a not-well-enough-known name becomes a nearly impenetrable barrier to getting your work published.
There’s a perfectly sound reason for that, of course—editors have to their trust authors, because, in accepting pitches, they’re implicitly investing time, energy, and money in them. A good reputation is the magazine world’s equivalent of good credit. Doing business with so
#11 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 09:02 AM
>>>She went out, & reported this story w/out a contract in hand.
I'd call this an investment. When I was a freelancer, I often did stories I thought would attract notice, since notice in turn attracted work. I won't do assignments on spec on principle, but I see nothing wrong with this. Most importantly, lest we forget, it's a damn good story, and that's the most important thing/
#12 Posted by Robert Levine, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 10:32 AM
@ Robert & @ Megan: I'm not talking theory. I did exactly what she did, ten years ago. It was an expensive, ugly lesson in how the business works. If you don't have a contract in hand, what you've reported/written is ON SPEC. No one is obligated to run your story, pay you a kill fee or underwrite your expenses.
Suggesting that going out and reporting stories, eyes wide open to this fact, is insane. If she / other people want to go down this road, fine. But don't expect people to stand up and applaud.
It's not a bad idea but, honestly, I haven't bothered to read it. Maybe my interests are the barometer of nothing; maybe it's a NME award winning piece. But, I suspect, there's something in the execution of a weak or not particularly strong idea that's at the source of her failure (yes, let's call it for what it is; people learn from failures & this is one, unfortunately is played out in public) to place the piece.
Please understand, I have nothing against this person - I don't know her, personally, and I am a huge fan of long form journalism. But this approach (which does, in its conception and resolution, reeks of a certain entitlement) is like so much of what I see currently being played out - from the sidelines - in that it's pure tacticsl and not strategy.
@Megan, I completely disagree with your prognosis ie., that this approach is really, & truly a long-term strategy for long form journalism. I.e., Throw what you "gotta do" out there and hope for the best? If anything, it highlights the reactive (see Conde Nast, still bleeding money, despite al those cutbacks and subway vouchers) MSM culture that she / others are operating in. And, I think, it reflects the seismic shifts (duh) the magazine culture's going through. As in, towards extinction.
Solution wise, I think the long-term prospects of pieces like this are linked more to finding a specific audience. There are billlions of people on planet Earth. There is no reason why she couldn't / can't make $$$ of this piece: she's not finding her audience for it (and, I suspect, it's a not-large one.) However, she hasn't bothered - being too busy with her day job? - to invest the time in beating the bushes to find and cultivate that audience. It's great that Poytner et al support her but I honestly don't think that these March of Dimes bids for $$$ are going to work, over the long term, in a sustainable way.
#13 Posted by Brad, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 11:44 AM
Sad commentary on the freelance market that a recent National Magazine Award-winner can't land an assignment for a such a news-peg-friendly story ... It makes me even happier about my own decision to give up the dream and retreat to academia!
I find the critical comments above interesting, particularly the one that mentioned John McPhee, as if the decision to buy, kill, run or spike a story these days is based solely (or even mainly) on the talent or ability of the writer; the implication being that if the writer is good enough, or well-known enough, his or her story will find a home. Ironic when John McPhee isn't even able to publish John McPhee-style stories these days! When was the last time one of his NYer stories broke 12,000 words?
#14 Posted by JT, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 12:19 PM
Lovely story. Gifted writer. End of story.
#15 Posted by JB, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 08:11 PM
>
The person who wrote this clearly doesn't know much about the magazine writing trade. Paige Williams won a National Magazine Award for feature writing in 2008. That's the biggest honor that a magazine writer can earn. And she won in the over-2,000,000 circulation category, which meant she was competing against stories from national publications such as Vanity Fair, National Geographic, Wired, and the Atlantic.
>
Again, this comment betrays ignorance of the magazine trade. Over the past 30 years, regional publications such as Texas Monthly, Philadelphia, and Atlanta have published some of the best long-form journalism. (So did now-defunct regional publications such as California and Regardie's, the DC business-political investigative magazine that broke the BCCI scandal and other stories in the 1980s and 1990s.) Look at the mastheads of top national magazines, and you'll see people like Esquire's Tom Junod, who is a former staff writer at Atlanta magazine, and GQ's Jeanne Marie Laskas, who was an editor at Pittsburgh. Stephen Fried, the investigative journalist who has written for GQ, Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone, won two National Magazine Awards at Philadelphia. Paige Williams rightly should be proud to be in the company of such talented writers.
#16 Posted by Patrick J. Kiger, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 11:16 AM
Hmmm...the web site oddly deleted the excerpts from Belinda Gomez's post, to which my comments refer. In case you were puzzled, here they are...
"The way the CJR piece reads, I would have thought Paige Williams was a national journalist of great repute."
The person who wrote this clearly doesn't know much about the magazine writing trade. Paige Williams won a National Magazine Award for feature writing in 2008. That's the biggest honor that a magazine writer can earn. And she won in the over-2,000,000 circulation category, which meant she was competing against stories from national publications such as Vanity Fair, National Geographic, Wired, and the Atlantic.
" Instead, most of her work has been for regional papers and magazines..."
gain, this comment betrays ignorance of the magazine trade. Over the past 30 years, regional publications such as Texas Monthly, Philadelphia, and Atlanta have published some of the best long-form journalism. (So did now-defunct regional publications such as California and Regardie's, the DC business-political investigative magazine that broke the BCCI scandal and other stories in the 1980s and 1990s.) Look at the mastheads of top national magazines, and you'll see people like Esquire's Tom Junod, who is a former staff writer at Atlanta magazine, and GQ's Jeanne Marie Laskas, who was an editor at Pittsburgh. Stephen Fried, the investigative journalist who has written for GQ, Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone, won two National Magazine Awards at Philadelphia. Paige Williams rightly should be proud to be in the company of such talented writers.
#17 Posted by Patrick J. Kiger, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 11:42 AM
Why is everyone so *mean?* Williams writes a gorgeous story despite the odds stacked up against every freelancer everywhere nowadays. That is what writers everywhere in every genre DO: figure out a way to afford to do the thing we love. Has nothing to do with what the cool people in NY publishing are saying these days. Read the story.
And yes, Pat Kiger, I agree that some of the best long form is in regional pubs. As someone who writes for all kinds of places, I say: it doesn't matter where you publish as long as the work is really YOURS. How you afford to do it is, blech, boring and beside the point.
#18 Posted by Jeanne Marie Laskas, CJR on Fri 15 Jan 2010 at 09:36 AM
I am doing bachelor of mass media course after which i plan to take up journalism.but sometimes i get very scared for the same..please help!!!
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/proactol-review-does-proactol-diet-pills-work-for-weight-loss-1707237.html
#19 Posted by hineliyaa, CJR on Thu 21 Jan 2010 at 08:12 AM