patientlee
I won't tell!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Posts
- 2,978
Oh, you evil, diabolical little...
That was a particularly vicious thing to do to me alongside my first caffeine jolt of the day.
Well, since I'm the sort who can't resist studying the inside of my navel and any other relevant sources when these little philosophical conundrums come up, I took refuge first in my own mind and then in Google and finally fell back on three real (and really heavy) books. And this is what I came up with.
An author for all practical purposes is a creator. This can be a written work, but it can also be of other matters such as theories and/or plans. As a synonym for this particular word, "originator" is generally the most widely accepted.
A writer is usually one who engages in scratching out visible sound symbols in some medium. While one potential meaning of the term shares an intersection with "author", for the most part this shared meaning is generally accepted to relate only to writing a story of some sort initially conceived by the one doing the writing and does not expand to include such concepts as theories and/or plans. Alternatively, one who scratches out something in sound syllables that are originally conceived by someone else, or something as innocuous as a grocery list, or something as inane as this philosophical rambling can be said to be a writer merely through the action of placing sound syllables into a visual format to convey an idea.
A story teller is typically one who tells a falsehood. While this may be to an end of entertainment for the audience, it could also be for their own aggrandizement or escapism. A story teller can work in any medium, whether it be written, verbal, or even song or other artistic media so long as a conceptual falsehood is shared with an audience. It actually took the most time to wrap my mind around this concept as some stories are based on, or at least pretend to be based in, factual accountings. As nearly as I can determine, the act of sharing the work from a singular perspective is what delineates it as a potential falsehood to meet the criteria since it does not account for other, potentially conflicting, viewpoints of the same events. A work that does utilize multiple viewpoint and credits them becomes something else.
Finally, I came to the conclusion that earlier postings in this thread are entirely correct and the adoption of one term or another for ones self is a matter of choice of the individual as they are all potentially equally correct and incorrect. And that polite etiquette would demand the use of the term an individual used for him or herself if the desire is to remain on cordial terms and to do otherwise would be seen as issuing a challenge to their self image and would not be a polite or cordial interaction.
As a result, I have decided to use none of these terms to describe myself and instead fall back on an older term of "gentlemanly warrior/scholar/poet". However, I will accept "supreme pontificator" as well so long as the anchovies are held.
Good God. I'm going to get another cup of coffee. And in return for your evilness, I am going to ask you whether the first man and woman had a navel and support your hypothesis with something other than "'cause I think they did", you little existentialist. *yawn* Have fun.
Step away from the Keurig. Now.