Define what a 'real writer' is to you.

Just curious seeing we all have different methods of writing, but what defines being a writer to you?

The product.

BlackShanglan said:

The product.

Click to expand...

Once again, the wise horsey says it all.

BlackShanglan said:

The product.

Click to expand...

Works for me.

BlackShanglan said:

The product.

Click to expand...

The process.
















Just being contrary.

impressive said:

The process.
















Just being contrary.

Click to expand...

Quelle surprise.

To Quote Peggy Lee.........'Is that all there is?'

impressive said:

The process.





Just being contrary.

Click to expand...

*laugh* Never suggested that the two might not be related. But I think that the product is proof of the match of the process to the individual writer.

Writing, not talking about writing.

In other words - I agree with Black Shanglan.

Og

Never mind 'real'. What's a 'writer'?

I mean, everybody writes. Something, somewhere.

Is it the genre that makes a writer? The volume? The media?

Product

We just had this discussion in a class. Product vs process pedagogy is a hot debate among the academic set. Hard to separate the two when discussing the teaching of writing, but much easier when discussing what makes a writer.

If I want to serve my friends dinner, I may go through the process of cooking. I can do everything according to the prescribed menus and techniques. But, if in the end, the food is inedible, my friends are still hungry.

sweetness6280 said:

Product

We just had this discussion in a class. Product vs process pedagogy is a hot debate among the academic set. Hard to separate the two when discussing the teaching of writing, but much easier when discussing what makes a writer.

If I want to serve my friends dinner, I may go through the process of cooking. I can do everything according to the prescribed menus and techniques. But, if in the end, the food is inedible, my friends are still hungry.

Click to expand...

But you could make the most delectable leg of lamb... and I'd want to puke and would refuse to eat it.

But someone else might LOVE it. (I know my DH would )

And others might be just as happy with spaghetti-o's...

sweetness6280 said:

If I want to serve my friends dinner, I may go through the process of cooking. I can do everything according to the prescribed menus and techniques. But, if in the end, the food is inedible, my friends are still hungry.

Click to expand...

So 'real writer' = 'good writer'?

And are there unreal writers?

Liar said:

So 'real writer' = 'good writer'?

Click to expand...

How come you always make my points so much more succinctly and much better than I do?

Selena_Kitt said:

How come you always make my points so much more succinctly and much better than I do?

Click to expand...

He's got limited English

Selena_Kitt said:

How come you always make my points so much more succinctly and much better than I do?

Click to expand...

Ok then. Now that's established.

Let's move forward.

Was Ed Wood not a real filmmaker?

(Or for that matter, is Uwe Boll not one now? Google him, I dare ya.)

Selena_Kitt said:

But you could make the most delectable leg of lamb... and I'd want to puke and would refuse to eat it.

But someone else might LOVE it. (I know my DH would )

And others might be just as happy with spaghetti-o's...

Click to expand...

Let them eat cake!

Actually, you bring up a valid point. Once you put the product out there, it no longer belongs to you. The reader will do with it as they please, or not do with it at all.

Liar said:

So 'real writer' = 'good writer'?

Click to expand...

Ah, there's the rub. Who defines 'good'? You? Your colleagues? Publishers (heaven forbid)?

You cannot separate product from process, but in the end there has to be some criteria for definition. It does not have to be universal. Abs asked:

ABSTRUSE said:

Just curious seeing we all have different methods of writing, but what defines being a writer to you?

Click to expand...

Operative words: to you.

I don't have a pat answer, but the question makes me think. Which is good.

ABSTRUSE said:

Just curious seeing we all have different methods of writing, but what defines being a writer to you?

Click to expand...

I agree with the "product" definition, but being chatty, I'd like to elaborate

Let me start by qualifying that we're talking about fiction writers primarily. There are plenty of great biography writers and political writers and such like that. I consider them writers, too, as it's hard to keep a reader's attention on a historical/philosophical topic if you're not a good writer. But what I'm looking at is the ability to create good works of fiction because that the sort of writers I know personally. I don't know many biographers and such.

We'll also add that this is my stupid, bias opinion It is based, however, on my experiences with writers groups, dealing with student writers and friendships with professional writers.

On the one hand, there are writers that I'd consider "real writers" even if they wrote/published only one book (Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man" for example). The quality of their product is so amazing, there is, in my mind, little doubt that this is a "real" writer. Counter to them are people who put out a lot of product that's more masturbating than writing. Just because you write up a lot of pages about some fantasy character having adventures (or sex) doesn't mean you're a "writer" (by my definition, that is). A writer has to be willing to show stories to others who will honestly criticize the writing, has to be willing to edit, polish, cut, re-write and make changes so that the story is the best it can be. Real writing isn't just putting a lot of words on a page and doing nothing more because "I write for myself" (Which is all-too-often a thinly veiled excuse for "But rewriting and editing to make the story better would take work!").

Call this quality product over quantity.

On the other hand, there are people who can write one readable book that might be a sucess, but who can't duplicate that output. I don't mean the success, I mean putting out a second book that's readable. That's quantity over quality. The quality wasn't bad, but the inability to create more undermines their title as a "writer."

Usually in the second case, the one, popular book is a thinly disguised treatise on a philosophy, a personal history, a political theory, what-have-you. The writer can't duplicate the "readablity" because they're not a "writer" working on creating good characters, setting, plot and such. They are a philosopher or spiritualist or therapist; in that first book, the moralizing was primary and what attracted readers, not the storytelling. So on a second go, the weakness in the storytelling, and the fact that this person is not a fiction writer (as compared to a philosopher) becomes apparent.

Don't ask me, I'm just a storyteller.

3113 said:

Usually in the second case, the one, popular book is a thinly disguised treatise on a philosophy, a personal history, a political theory, what-have-you. The writer can't duplicate the "readablity" because they're not a "writer" working on creating good characters, setting, plot and such. They are a philosopher or spiritualist or therapist; in that first book, the moralizing was primary and what attracted readers, not the storytelling. So on a second go, the weakness in the storytelling, and the fact that this person is not a fiction writer (as compared to a philosopher) becomes apparent.

Click to expand...

So in your personal opinion, does Ayn Rand fall into this category, I wonder?

Selena_Kitt said:

So in your personal opinion, does Ayn Rand fall into this category, I wonder?

Click to expand...

[whistles]

I ain't entering those shark-infested waters for nothing!

sweetness6280 said:

Ah, there's the rub. Who defines 'good'? You? Your colleagues? Publishers (heaven forbid)?

Click to expand...

Let me give you an example of what I mean by a writer including "product." I once taught a writing class and as it was a writing class to give people a chance to try their hand at it, I did not grade on quality. There were a number of assignments, and all the students had to do was do the assignments. No matter how awful the writing, if they did them, if they worked at writing, they'd pass the class. Just like someone in a swim class could pass it without ending up in the Olympics.

I get a sweet girl who wants to be a poet. She's written up some poems that her parents raved over. She shows me these poems and, well, sure enough they're the usual, bad, teenage poetry that we all write. Come on, you know what I'm talking about!

I'm thinking: oh, dear. This girl has been mislead by her indulgent parents into thinking she's a poet. But hey, it doesn't much matter if she is or isn't really a poet for my class, right? So. First assignment: come up with five ideas for a story. I tell her, "Come up with five subjects for poems." Can be anything. Time to turn in the assignment. She doesn't. Why not? "I couldn't think of anything."

Okay. Next assignment. Go out, find an interesting setting on campus and describe it in a paragraph. I tell her "You can do it as a poem." Students return and read paragraphs about leafy trees and red-brick buildings and such. Some are good, some are awful. I turn to poet girl. No assignment. She couldn't do it.

Poetry exercise time! Everyone in the class has to write a sonnet. Tough assignment, but, once again, it doesn't have to be good. My reasoning here is that all the wannabe poets have only written free-form poetry. I think they should give structured poetry a try, as it will require some real creativity and thoughts on word choice. Everyone does it--some amazing, some terrible. Poet girl doesn't. "Can I just write poems like I write them?"

Finally, I tell her, "Look. Write up a fairy tale. A very simple, children's fairy tale." She comes back to me. Couldn't do it. I say to her, "I don't think you're a writer."

There's a card I had with a Jackson Pollack painting. Under the painting were the words: "I can do that!" and inside it said, "No. You can't." If we take anything that anyone writes of any quality or quantity as defining them as a "writer" then we erase all meaning from the word. A lot of people think they can be writers, or that writing is easy. But as I define it at least, neither is true. Not everyone can be a writer even if they can write down words or even come up with characters and some sort of story. And it's by no means easy to be a REAL writer.

Writing is not like shitting. It's not something that anyone can do.

3113 said:

There's a card I had with a Jackson Pollack painting. Under the painting were the words: "I can do that!" and inside it said, "No. You can't." If we take anything that anyone writes of any quality or quantity as defining them as a "writer" then we erase all meaning from the word. A lot of people think they can be writers, or that writing is easy. But as I define it at least, neither is true. Not everyone can be a writer even if they can write down words or even come up with characters and some sort of story. And it's by no means easy to be a REAL writer.

Writing is not like shitting. It's not something that anyone can do.

Click to expand...

Perfect example. I agree completely.

Selena_Kitt said:

So in your personal opinion, does Ayn Rand fall into this category, I wonder?

Click to expand...

That was my first thought.

And 3? I don't blame you.