Define what a 'real writer' is to you.

[CharleyH]

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?

While I believe in a good product (Cornflakes were just another means to a fetishists enema routine before they became a good saleable cereal product, Shang *see Kellogg* ) and I do not necessarily agree with Og (I love talking about writing, babe).

I am a writer.

I make a lot of money at it and I make a lot of money because I deliver a good product. Of course, research and structure amongst other things are paramount (process) to me as a writer with a good product. At the end of the day, if you make a living out of writing then you are a writer. Otherwise you are an amateur. Example. You may have gone to acting school and had a few bit parts in movies, but you make your living waiting tables. At the end of the day, you are a waiter and not an actor.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I knew Charley would appear sooner or later.

You've all written so much good stuff and I love that this has gone for this many pages.
Thank you all for your responses.

 

[oggbashan]

...and I do not necessarily agree with Og (I love talking about writing, babe).

What I was saying was that talking about writing can be a diversionary tactic to avoid writing.

Writers have to write. Unfortunately for my production here, the last year I have been writing for other purposes (including a bid for one and a half million pounds to improve our local park).

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CHARLEY

I think you confuse 'amateur' with "dilettante."

Charles Darwin was an amateur naturalist.

 

[CharleyH]

I make a distinction between a writer and an author. Anyone can write.

An author, however, can take an edit without crying in her beer.

But seriously, an author makes a living by writing; to me, it's like the difference between a professional an an amateur. If you play basketball as a hobby, can you call yourself a basketball player? Sure, but certainly not a professional. The distinction is there, if subtle.

I will disagree with you here, Kenna. I make my living by writing and on all accounts and my tax documents to boot ... it says, "writer", but I do not consider myself an "author". To get to that status (in my eyes) I'd have had to have written a novel length fiction or non-fiction that was excellent enough to have had it published by a reputable publisher and is sitting as we speak (in paperback or hardcover) on the shelves of Glad Day (an alternative bookstore) Indigo or my local library. A writer makes a living out of writing. An author is at a stage when he or she can just sit back and make a living out of royalties, if he or she so chooses.

 

[CharleyH]

I knew Charley would appear sooner or later.

Oh - lol - did I ruin something? kisses love - it's a great discussion and I am enjoying all the different responses.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Oh - lol - did I ruin something? kisses love - it's a great discussion and I am enjoying all the different responses.

Not at all. I'm loving it too.

 

[McKenna]

I will disagree with you here, Kenna. I make my living by writing and on all accounts and my tax documents to boot ... it says, "writer", but I do not consider myself an "author". To get to that status (in my eyes) I'd have had to have written a novel length fiction or non-fiction that was excellent enough to have had it published by a reputable publisher and is sitting as we speak (in paperback or hardcover) on the shelves of Glad Day (an alternative bookstore) Indigo or my local library. A writer makes a living out of writing. An author is at a stage when he or she can just sit back and make a living out of royalties, if he or she so chooses.

Damn it. I hate it when you're right.

 

[CharleyH]

What I was saying was that talking about writing can be a diversionary tactic to avoid writing.
Og

Yes on this point, and as I write to this post I'm completely avoiding something I need to write, so yes, lol - it is avoidance that can be for good (in my case a much needed brain break), or not ... for others.

 

[CharleyH]

CHARLEY

I think you confuse 'amateur' with "dilettante."

Actually? No. I don't.

 

[BlackShanglan]

At the end of the day, if you make a living out of writing then you are a writer.

Hmmm! Interesting. On the one hand, I'm quite self-conscious about being asked what I do at the moment; until I sell something substantial, I don't want to call myself a writer. It's presumptuous and robs the real achievement of its value. I tend to stumble around with something like "freelance writer - which means 'willfully unemployed'." I feel the need to step away from the title.

On the other hand - was Lord Byron not a writer, then? Or John Stuart Mill? Or T. S. Eliot? Thank you for leaving me delightfully conflicted, Charley.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Charley, you are a Professional Writer.

An amateur writer is still a writer. There was a time when all writers were amateurs, and many of them still are; William Shakespeare was a stage manager, John Wilmot was a courtier. Henry Fielding was a cop, Vladimir Nabokov was a professor, John Kennedy Toole was-- well, he was never much of anything, but his single novel won the Pulitzer...

(Edit to say, Shanglan has offered some other good examples)

 

[BlackShanglan]

I've just realized that I have a double standard.

I want other people to be called writers if they put serious time and effort into writing.

I'm not ready to call myself a writer until I've either sold major pieces or produced something I consider truly substantial work.

I'm oddly comfortable with that, too.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Perhaps we can name the vocation; "Writer" and the avocation, "writing" and the folk who have successfully pursued their avocation; "Authors. "

So, Shang, you could legitimately say; "I'm writing." when people ask.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So, Shang, you could legitimately say; "I'm writing." when people ask.

Bless you. That's much more succint. (Surprise!)

 

[rgraham666]

Thought provoking thread.

But not of much interest to me. So I'm off to write.

 

[CharleyH]

Hmmm! Interesting. On the one hand, I'm quite self-conscious about being asked what I do at the moment; until I sell something substantial, I don't want to call myself a writer. It's presumptuous and robs the real achievement of its value. I tend to stumble around with something like "freelance writer - which means 'willfully unemployed'." I feel the need to step away from the title.

On the other hand - was Lord Byron not a writer, then? Or John Stuart Mill? Or T. S. Eliot? Thank you for leaving me delightfully conflicted, Charley.

I've had a bit of a struggle with the term "writer" myself, Shang. Lord Byron, T.S Eliot? Not sure how they made their livings when alive, but certainly they are now considered poets (in my eyes). I may love sex, I may have sex every single day of my adult life, but unless I get paid for it, I won't call myself a prostitute. History may label me as such, but that's not up to me.

As a "writer" I do find it offensive that one might call themselves a writer without being gainfully employed. Will you call me a brain surgeon and let me perform on you just because it's my passion?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I've had a bit of a struggle with the term "writer" myself, Shang. Lord Byron, T.S Eliot? Not sure how they made their livings when alive, but certainly they are now considered poets (in my eyes). I may love sex, I may have sex every single day of my adult life, but unless I get paid for it, I won't call myself a prostitute. History may label me as such, but that's not up to me.

As a "writer" I do find it offensive that one might call themselves a writer without being gainfully employed. Will you call me a brain surgeon and let me perform on you just because it's my passion?

Byron became independently wealthy at an early age; although he later squandered most of that, he remained true to the ideals of a gentleman and gave away the earnings from his publication. Eliot was a bank clerk, and I seem to think earned most of his actual money that way, at least for some years. Wallace Stevens, if I recall, was an insurance salesman; poetry has never paid much. John Stuart Mill was a civil servant.

I'm torn, myself. I do understand your feelings about people being presumptuous, and certainly it can be a much easier thing to say "I'm a writer" than to make a living as one. However, if one is putting the same amount of effort into the actual writing and doing the same quality of work, does a paycheck really make that much difference? In your brain surgeon example, if you were a brain surgeon who'd trained and worked in the field with a strong track record, but who had for one reason or another chosen not to take a salary, I would still have ample faith in you. On the other hand, if you just fell in love with the idea of being a brain surgeon and hadn't done any training, of course I would prefer not to be your first patient.

The problem with writers is that there's so little to tell you which you're dealing with, and the discipline is different in crucial ways. There are some published authors who have managed to do one thing well or even brilliantly, once; there's no brain surgeon equivalent of that. Harper Lee doesn't walk into the operating room, perform one stunning procedure, and then quietly retire, having done what she knew was in her. And of a dozen insurance salesmen with a taste for poetry, who can tell, at a glance, which ones have spent the last twenty years reading, studying, and writing it, devoting themselves to the art, and which have just twiddled about with some rhymes now and then without any serious application?

I can't quite bring myself to make publication the sole criteria. If nothing else, it leads to awkward questions with authors who weren't published during their own lifetimes. Did Emily Dickinson and John Wilmot die without being writers but somehow become writers after death? Whatever they were going to do in their lives, they had already done by the time their work was published. It seems odd to suggest that they became writers after their deaths through no action of their own.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've had a bit of a struggle with the term "writer" myself, Shang. Lord Byron, T.S Eliot? Not sure how they made their livings when alive, but certainly they are now considered poets (in my eyes). I may love sex, I may have sex every single day of my adult life, but unless I get paid for it, I won't call myself a prostitute. History may label me as such, but that's not up to me.

As a "writer" I do find it offensive that one might call themselves a writer without being gainfully employed. Will you call me a brain surgeon and let me perform on you just because it's my passion?

I was thinking along those same lines just after I posted, Charley

There are so many activities where this simply isn't an issue; The Old Man and I mess around with hot rods, but neither of us call ourselves mechanics. I am fascinated by the new discoveries in neurology, but I am not and never will be a neurologist.

It's only in the creative arts, I think, where the lines are so fuzzy. Acting, visual, writing, music.

As a gainfully employed writer, can't you call yourself a Professional Writer? As opposed to us wanna-bees and amateurs?

I want other people to be called writers if they put serious time and effort into writing.

I'm not ready to call myself a writer until I've either sold major pieces or produced something I consider truly substantial work.

Horsey, I'm right with you there!

 

[CharleyH]

I was thinking along those same lines just after I posted, Charley

As a gainfully employed writer, can't you call yourself a Professional Writer? As opposed to us wanna-bees and amateurs?

Hm ... why must we qualify between amateur and professional writers? We certainly don't do the same for amateur and professional brain surgeons. You make good points, though, babe.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The whole thesis is ridiculous and assinine.

Richard Rhodes spent many years cranking out a weekly employee bulletin for his employer. He was paid to do it, so that made him, what?

Margaret Mitchell wrote one book.

Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings published a string of best sellers that couldnt support her, until THE YEARLING won the Pulitzer and she sold the movie rights.

 

[rikaaim]

Charley makes a good point in that we don't seperate amature or professional brain surgeons. The differnce between brain surgeon and writer is that the surgeon must go to school, prove their knowledge, and earn the right to be a surgeon. Any person at all can pick up a pen/pencil and paper, or sit down to the keyboard and start throwing down words. Any amatuer writer can instantly become a profesional writer given the proper circumstances. At any age any person can become a writer. It's not an achieved status. However, some have risen above this "basic" level of writing to become "great" writers. Poe, Hemmingway, Kafka, etc...

How did they earn such esteemed positions? Was it extra schooling such as that of a doctor or professor? Many professors later on became writers of notable fame. Even Tolkien has been noted as having a very amatuer process of writing. He writing process has been described as a wave upon a shore. He would write so far, as much as he had planned or the characters took him. Then he would start the whole thing over and proceed up to the point where he stopped and push forward a little bit more until he had to start all over again. Talk about a painstaking process. Yet look at the product.

So, does legacy make a great writer? Does mass production make a great writer? I thinik we've established that one does not need to be "great" to be a writer. Is this how we are trying to define "real"? I'd like to think first and foremost that Kafka was a very lost and confused man who was trying to find his path in life and acceptance from loved ones he never got. I think he journals would suggest the same idea. I'd like to think of Hemmingway was a man who loved his drink perhaps more than those around him. Certainly he was a man who loved life and all of its exciting aspects, yes, women too. Is he not more a mirror of his inner self for others to see how he lives the world?

I read a short essay once in which the author, I can't remember his name, said that writers are no longer the sages of the times.

That stuck with me because I always thought that writers reflected upon a world that others missed or didn't see in the daily grind of living. Even fiction writing shows a world in which the author sees ideally, to some degree. So, are "real" authors the sages and guidance leaders that they used to be? Holding morals and ethics up to the light of the public eye? I realize I'm dipping into subcategories here, and that it was said earlier that someone can produce a work that is more philosophy than fiction. I agree with that. I just think it interesting how writers are viewed at different periods of history. More interesting to me is the rise of status once an author passes away, in exceptional cases, Kafka for example.

As for my own views, I always thought a writer was a person who could take an idea in their head, turn the idea into a piece of work that could be viewed, and the viewer understands the translation well enough as to know the idea in the person's head. I always felt successful if someone understood through my writing what idea, feeling, image, etc...I was trying to convey.

 

[The_Fool]

I think real writers are precise, and concise with their language.

I am neither, I tend to ramble on. I think I'm more in the storyteller vein, and a good storyteller stretches the story out, whereas the writer tries to pare it down to the bare essentials.

Pfffft......Faulkner.

 

[The_Fool]

Hm ... why must we qualify between amateur and professional writers? We certainly don't do the same for amateur and professional brain surgeons. You make good points, though, babe.

Money...

 

[The_Fool]

...poetry has never paid much...

Hey I got $10 once. Not gonna talk about the number of times writing poetry got me laid. Hey Charley, does that make me a prostitute or a john?


Personally, I think my years as a technical writer make me more of a prostitute... No, wait. There was no sex involved unless you count virtually buggery. Forget I said that.