Joss Whedon keeps his wheezing and sniffling (we're guessing) self off the picket line, but he does his union brothers and sisters proud by blogging his protest for all (or none) to hear:

Reporters are funny people. At least, some of the New York Times reporters are. Their story on the strike was the most dispiriting and inaccurate that I read. But it also contained one of my favorite phrases of the month.

"All the trappings of a union protest were there ... But instead of hard hats and work boots, those at the barricades wore arty glasses and fancy scarves."

Oh my God. Arty glasses and fancy scarves. That is so cute! My head is aflame with images of writers in ruffled collars, silk pantaloons and ribbons upon their buckled shoes. A towering powdered wig upon David Fury's head, and Drew Goddard in his yellow stockings (cross-gartered, needless to say). Such popinjays, we! The entire writers' guild as Leslie Howard in The Scarlet Pimpernel. Delicious.

Whedon works himself up into a lather, as he continues on a long -- but cogent -- rant:

Except this is exactly the problem. The easiest tactic is for people to paint writers as namby pamby arty scarfy posers, because it's what most people think even when we're not striking. Writing is largely not considered work. Art in general is not considered work. Work is a thing you physically labor at, or at the very least, hate. Art is fun. (And Hollywood writers are overpaid, scarf-wearing dainties.) It's an easy argument to make. And a hard one to dispute.

My son is almost five. He is just beginning to understand what I do as a concept. If I drove a construction crane he'd have understood it at birth. And he'd probably think I was King of all the Lands in my fine yellow crane. But writing -- especially writing a movie or show, where people other than the writer are all saying things that they're clearly (to an unschooled mind) making up right then -- is something to get your head around.

And as work? Well, in the first place, it IS fun. When it's going well, it's the most fun I can imagine having. (Tim Minear might dispute that.) And when it's not going well, it's often not going well in the company of a bunch of funny, thoughtful people. So how is that work? You got no muscles to show for it (yes, the brain is a muscle, but if you show it to people it's usually because part of your skull has been torn off and that doesn't impress the ladies -- unless the ladies are ZOMBIES! Where did this paragraph go?) Writing is enjoyable and ephemeral. And it's hard work.

It's always hard. Not just dealing with obtuse, intrusive studio execs, temperamental stars and family-prohibiting hours. Those are producer issues as much as anything else. Not just trying to get your first script sold, or seen, or finished, when nobody around believes you can/will/should ... the ACT of writing is hard. When Buffy was flowing at its flowingest, David Greenwalt used to turn to me at some point during every torturous story-breaking session and say, "Why is it still hard? When do we just get to be good at it?" I'll only bore you with one theory: because every good story needs to be completely personal (so there are no guidelines) and completely universal (so it's all been done). It's just never simple.

It's necessary, though. We're talking about story-telling, the most basic human need. Food? That's an animal need. Shelter? That's a luxury item that leads to social grouping, which leads directly to fancy scarves. But human awareness is all about story-telling. The selective narrative of your memory. The story of why the Sky Bully throws lightning at you. From the first, stories, even unspoken, separated us from the other, cooler beasts. And now we're talking about the stories that define our nation's popular culture -- a huge part of its identity. These are the people that think those up. Working writers.

"The trappings of a union protest..." You see how that works? Since we aren't real workers, this isn't a real union issue. (We're just a guild!) And that's where all my "what is a writer" rambling becomes important. Because this IS a union issue, one that will affect not just artists but every member of a community that could find itself at the mercy of a machine that absolutely and unhesitatingly would dismantle every union, remove every benefit, turn every worker into a cowed wage-slave in the singular pursuit of profit. (There is a machine. Its program is "profit." This is not a myth.) This is about a fair wage for our work. No different than any other union. The teamsters have recognized the importance of this strike, for which I'm deeply grateful. Hopefully the Times will too.