• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

"War on #amwriting" and a rebuttal

Hey everyone! I like to frequent Derek Murphy's blog, CreativIndie, and he linked to this great piece he'd done as a rebuttal to this: War on #amwriting The article itself is a little discouraging, in my opinion. The author trashes unpublished fantasy and science fiction writers (but how exactly can you be a published one without having been unpublished at some point?). There is just a lot of elitism going on here. Despite the fact that it made me bristle a little, it was thought-provoking.

However, Murphy's rebuttal is really, really cool. #areyouwriting?

What do you guys think? (and I'm sorry if somebody else posted these articles already)
 

X Equestris

Maester
I appreciated Murphy's rebuttal. The author of that first article was...a piece of work. The level of elitism he displayed was astounding.
 

Svrtnsse

Staff
Article Team
Thanks for finding these articles.
I've been feeling a bit down about my writing today. The first article sort of summed that bit up quite well. The other article sums up why I'll keep going and why I've had such a great time so far.
 
I get what the first guy was saying. He just said it poorly. Like...really poorly. I think we can all agree that there are people out there that call themselves writers when they don't really do much of anything (think Zooey Deschanel's (sp?) love interest/roommate in New Girl) to wither improve their writing or to even get a novel done. It's these type of people that write the #amwriter hashtag to brag about their "writing," get nothing done, all for the purpose of getting praised heaped upon them.

That said. Writer one is a total doofenschmirtz for placing all amateur unpublished writers into the same group. I am an amateur writer. (Though I have to admit I don't use the hashtag because A: I don't like hastags and B: I don't like Twitter.) I often tell people as the topic arises that I am writing a novel. I usually tell them I do it for myself and if my hobby can make me a little cash on the side, hey so be it. (Besides it's fun to get away from that crap "writing" that comes with the legal field.) In any event, writer one was wrong to be a complete jerk to all people in the amateur camp simply because there are writers that brag about writing and don't really write.

I also disagree with his premise that being unpublished automatically makes that person not a novelist or writer. This is best explained by way of analogy. I like to golf. I go golfing frequently. I am, by definition, a golfer. I am not a pro golfer. I am not even an "amateur" golfer as the golfing world uses it. I am, at best, a hobbyist. I am still a golfer. I write novels. I write on a pretty much weekly basis. I have yet to be published. I do not think that I am good enough to be published, as of yet. I would like to be. I am still a novelist. Simply because one is not a professional at something does not mean that are not a doer of that thing. A golfer is a golfer, whether they are Tiger Woods or me. Similarly, a writer is a writer, no matter if they are GRRM or me.

TL: DR. I understand the man's frustration with writers that say they write for praise but don't really write. His approach though was very poor. And the premise that only published authors are novelists is flawed.
 

Velka

Sage
This made me laugh. I like to believe everyone has a story inside them, wanting to be told. It's a part of the human condition. We learn, connect, love, laugh, cry through stories. What is history but a bunch of stories?

I am an elementary school teacher, surrounded by 20 six and seven year olds every day. They all have different strengths, talents, struggles, and needs, but when I sit them down (all squirmy and needy and snotty) to read them a story, something magical happens - they can sit still, they can listen, they can think, and they can connect. I don't have any other word for it than magic. Stories are magical. I look out at my class and suddenly there are 20 little people, enraptured and full of wonder, investing every fibre of their being into the story I am reading.

They love to shout out (and while I am normally a stickler for raising one's hand and waiting one's turn I indulge this innocent and primal need during a read aloud) inferences they make, connections to their life and other books we have read, predictions, and questions. Read a story to a bunch of children and you rediscover the magic they hold. After I read a story to my class I put in on our "read aloud shelf" and those little people will read that story a hundred times over in a course of a month. They'll read it to themselves (half of them not even able to read the words, but remember it enough to use the pictures to retell it from memory), they'll read it to their friends, they'll draw pictures and make their own version of the story, they'll use it to put on a puppet show, they'll take it home and make their parents reread it to them until I get notes begging to take it off the damn shelf.

But, as usual, I digress. Anyone who thinks that stories and the writing of them belong to some high and mighty intellectual elite can suck it. Seriously. F--- you. The very act of sitting down and believing you have something to say is a wonderful thing. It may not be good, it may not be coherent, but I would rather a million people sit down and write a million pieces of crap than a million people say to themselves that their ideas, their imagination, their experiences aren't good enough, aren't profound enough, aren't relevant enough to share.

Stories are important. They are profound. They are an important piece of what makes us connected and empathetic and united. Without stories we wouldn't have history, philosophy, culture, and shared human condition.

Every human is a story-teller, and to diminish that is a crime.
 

Trick

Auror
I'm imagining the person who wrote the original article (would have been easier to say 'original writer' but I'd hate to offend him) in a room with Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Gene Wolfe, Robert Jordan and Neil Gaiman, spewing his self-important diatribe and then reaping the repercussions.

It makes me feel better :)

I want nothing more than to read his novel and tear it to shreds for the garbage it is (even if it's good... I've got an Irish temper, what can I say?).

Derek Murphy's rebuttal was the mature and sophisticated response this article deserved; and one I would not have had the patience to write.

Three cheers for Derek Murphy, I wish him much success and if I see his books in the future, I'll buy them because of this.
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
I'm going to be that guy and say I actually liked both articles. Allow me to elaborate.

I think the first article highlights something I've thought about for a long time. Talking about writing isn't writing. It's talking about writing. I'm taking away time from my own writing now to respond to this article. This isn't writing. I could be writing now.

Yes, I use social media, forums, and such to talk about writing. I like talking about writing. But there has to be that point in which I say, "OK, enough talking. More doing."

Sure, the first article's tone is elitist. But so many writers I find on blogs and forums say they want honest criticism. Well, look at that first article as honest criticism. If something struck you or made you mad, there's a good reason for it. Maybe there's some nugget of truth in it. I know there is for me. I like talking about writing. Maybe too much. My time could be better served working on getting better. Completing novels. Editing. Doing work.

But I like talking about writing. Hence, why I like the second article. NaNoWriMo, to me, is the ultimate conversation piece for writers that want to talk about writing. It's like the Superbowl of writers talking about writing. Therefore, I love it. Because if there's anything I love more than writing it's talking about writing. In effect, my talking about writing puts it out into the air. It begs people to ask, "How's your novel going?" This question, upon meeting friends, even takes precedence over "How you been doing lately?" This is because I like talking about writing and my friends know this.

To me, talking about writing goes hand-in-hand with me actually writing. I have noticed when I don't talk about writing for a while, my productivity drastically goes down. Weird, right?

So in essence, I think the first article struck a chord with me more. I've read tons of "You can do it" or "All writers are different" articles all over the internet. Positivity is good, of course. But sometimes a splash of cold water or a killjoy helps me realize I may be spending too much time focusing on the idea of being a writer and not actually being one.

I'm not going to stop talking about writing. Just like I'm not going to stop talking about movies, video games, funny videos, or whatever else I plaster on my social media. I like doing it, so no amount of criticism is going to stop me from doing it.

But I am going to write more. Starting now.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to be that guy and say I actually liked both articles. Allow me to elaborate.

I think the first article highlights something I've thought about for a long time. Talking about writing isn't writing. It's talking about writing. I'm taking away time from my own writing now to respond to this article. This isn't writing. I could be writing now.

That's a very good point, Phil, and I appreciate that you made it. Something I have run into in my life is when I tell people I'm a writer, their response is, "That's nice," until they happen to see me editing my 300+ page novel and say, "I didn't know you meant you were am actual writer! There is something to be said for a dilution of the writing 'brand,' especially by the people who jaw about writing but never do, and it's pretty annoying.

Yes, I use social media, forums, and such to talk about writing. I like talking about writing. But there has to be that point in which I say, "OK, enough talking. More doing."

Sure, the first article's tone is elitist. But so many writers I find on blogs and forums say they want honest criticism. Well, look at that first article as honest criticism. If something struck you or made you mad, there's a good reason for it. Maybe there's some nugget of truth in it. I know there is for me. I like talking about writing. Maybe too much. My time could be better served working on getting better. Completing novels. Editing. Doing work.

Mm. Perhaps I interpreted the article differently, but it seemed to me that the author was also criticizing people who participate in NaNoWriMo, (therefore, people who actually write) for proclaiming their writing status. It seemed like his take was not, "spend more time writing and less time talking," but more "shut up about your writing altogether."

What bugged me most about this article was the author's attack on the SFF genres. Something I've run into in college professors for a long time is this notion that fantasy can't be 'literary,' while these same professors will turn around and have you read Watership Down, which mysteriously, isn't 'fantasy.'

But I like talking about writing. Hence, why I like the second article. NaNoWriMo, to me, is the ultimate conversation piece for writers that want to talk about writing. It's like the Superbowl of writers talking about writing. Therefore, I love it. Because if there's anything I love more than writing it's talking about writing. In effect, my talking about writing puts it out into the air. It begs people to ask, "How's your novel going?" This question, upon meeting friends, even takes precedence over "How you been doing lately?" This is because I like talking about writing and my friends know this.

To me, talking about writing goes hand-in-hand with me actually writing. I have noticed when I don't talk about writing for a while, my productivity drastically goes down. Weird, right?

No, I don't think it's weird. I think it makes perfect sense. When nobody knows about what you're doing, it's easy to bury it and forget it yourself.
So in essence, I think the first article struck a chord with me more. I've read tons of "You can do it" or "All writers are different" articles all over the internet. Positivity is good, of course. But sometimes a splash of cold water or a killjoy helps me realize I may be spending too much time focusing on the idea of being a writer and not actually being one.

I'm not going to stop talking about writing. Just like I'm not going to stop talking about movies, video games, funny videos, or whatever else I plaster on my social media. I like doing it, so no amount of criticism is going to stop me from doing it.

But I am going to write more. Starting now.

Thanks for your insights, Phil. I'm going to re-read the article with fresh eyes, keeping your thoughts in mind.

And by the way, it's been a while since I really was involved on MS, so I haven't seen your avatar pic until now. One word: Nice.
 
I get what the first guy was saying. He just said it poorly. Like...really poorly. I think we can all agree that there are people out there that call themselves writers when they don't really do much of anything (think Zooey Deschanel's (sp?) love interest/roommate in New Girl) to wither improve their writing or to even get a novel done. It's these type of people that write the #amwriter hashtag to brag about their "writing," get nothing done, all for the purpose of getting praised heaped upon them.

As much as I am ruffled by that article, it is thought-provoking. It's kind of a good light-the-fire-under-one's-pants wake up call - if you want to call yourself a writer, then for heaven's sake, write.

That said. Writer one is a total doofenschmirtz...

May I use this word, please? I want to make it the word of the week on my blog, even if it's not real, LOL!

...for placing all amateur unpublished writers into the same group. I am an amateur writer. (Though I have to admit I don't use the hashtag because A: I don't like hastags and B: I don't like Twitter.) I often tell people as the topic arises that I am writing a novel. I usually tell them I do it for myself and if my hobby can make me a little cash on the side, hey so be it. (Besides it's fun to get away from that crap "writing" that comes with the legal field.) In any event, writer one was wrong to be a complete jerk to all people in the amateur camp simply because there are writers that brag about writing and don't really write.

My thoughts exactly. Not all amateurs are created alike. I actually use #amwriting a lot in my tweets, but it's because it gets my blog posts noticed.

I also disagree with his premise that being unpublished automatically makes that person not a novelist or writer. This is best explained by way of analogy. I like to golf. I go golfing frequently. I am, by definition, a golfer. I am not a pro golfer. I am not even an "amateur" golfer as the golfing world uses it. I am, at best, a hobbyist. I am still a golfer. I write novels. I write on a pretty much weekly basis. I have yet to be published. I do not think that I am good enough to be published, as of yet. I would like to be. I am still a novelist. Simply because one is not a professional at something does not mean that are not a doer of that thing. A golfer is a golfer, whether they are Tiger Woods or me. Similarly, a writer is a writer, no matter if they are GRRM or me.

TL: DR. I understand the man's frustration with writers that say they write for praise but don't really write. His approach though was very poor. And the premise that only published authors are novelists is flawed.

Appreciate your thoughts on this. I think we are mostly in agreement.
 

Mythopoet

Auror
I remember that article. It got reposted on The Passive Voice back in October and there was a great 200+ comment thread pointing out just how stupid the author was. My favorite response was a quote from Kurt Vonnegut:

“Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven’s sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possibly can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country
 

Amanita

Maester
I clicked the link to this article expecting to get my blood boiling as tends to happen from some controversial online articles because they hit a nerve even though I disagree with the premise. This one however was so bad, it failed to achieve this.
If the person's character can be judged by this piece, he's definitely not on the list of people I'd want to meet in real life and I'm not that surprised he didn't manage to publish a book so far. What exactly is his point? He seems to belong to the group of unpublished writers he hates so much but for some reason, he's different and much better? How convincing.
I second the remarks about asthma made by many of the commenters on the thread Mythopoet has linked above. Such a lack of empathy must make convincing characterisation difficult.
Don't get me started on the nazi comparisons...

By the way, Phill, I really admire your ability to get something constructive out of this. It's a skill that surely makes life a lot easier and I'm not being sarcastic.
 
Be sure you mention its a verbified noun. I got it from the evil guy Dr. Doofenschmitz and his company doofenschmitz evil incorporated from the cartoon Phineas and Ferb.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
For me, there's something to be said when you compare the quality of writing between the two articles. The first is a rambling mess full of bad comparisons and poorly thought out generalities. The second is concise and well thought out.

As with others in this thread, I do understand the general point he may be trying to make, which can be summed up as follows. Writers write. If you're not writing on a consistent basis, then maybe you're not a writer or cut out to be one.

From what I gleaned, the author of the first article seems a bit bitter, and sounds like the stereotypical failed--I won't use novelist since he's not professionally published--putter of words on the page.

As for his disdain for things like NaNoWriMo, I point to Hugo and Campbell winning, professional author Mary Robinette Kowal who wrote her Hugo nominated novel, Shades of Milk and Honey, during NaNoWriMo.

If anyone is interested here's something she wrote in response to critics of NaNo. Shades of Milk and Honey was a NaNoWriMo novel - Mary Robinette Kowal
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
By the way, Phill, I really admire your ability to get something constructive out of this. It's a skill that surely makes life a lot easier and I'm not being sarcastic.

I guess because I've seen so many "You can do it" kind of articles, for me it's interesting to see a wholly negative one. It makes me think about what I'm spending my time doing. What I gathered, and maybe I'm off the mark, is that people who want to be writers should be spending time on their craft and not sitting around on social media talking about it. For me, anytime I use the #amwriting tag, it's because I'm doing writing. I imagine that's what other people use it for as well. So I don't really see how it's a bad thing.
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
As with others in this thread, I do understand the general point he may be trying to make, which can be summed up as follows. Writers write. If you're not writing on a consistent basis, then maybe you're not a writer or cut out to be one.

Ninja'd! But yeah, that's what I was getting at.

From what I gleaned, the author of the first article seems a bit bitter, and sounds like the stereotypical failed--I won't use novelist since he's not professionally published--putter of words on the page.

To me it sounds a bit like the hipster excuse of "I don't want to do this anymore because now it's cool."

As for his disdain for things like NaNoWriMo, I point to Hugo and Campbell winning, professional author Mary Robinette Kowal who wrote her Hugo nominated novel, Shades of Milk and Honey, during NaNoWriMo.

If anyone is interested here's something she wrote in response to critics of NaNo. Shades of Milk and Honey was a NaNoWriMo novel - Mary Robinette Kowal

I do think NaNoWriMo can create some great books. But I don't think anyone should need an excuse to write. Last November was the first time I "failed" NaNoWriMo and I think I was better for it. I learned that I don't need NaNoWriMo anymore to do writing. I just do it.
 

Guy

Inkling
If he put as much effort into writing as he does for bitching about writers he'd be a freakin' best selling scriblerian by now.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
I do think NaNoWriMo can create some great books. But I don't think anyone should need an excuse to write. Last November was the first time I "failed" NaNoWriMo and I think I was better for it. I learned that I don't need NaNoWriMo anymore to do writing. I just do it.

Yeah, for sure. I did and won NaNo two years in a row, but then I stopped participating, because I was writing pretty much everyday anyway on top of participating in a writing group. I didn't think I needed or wanted the extra pressure of a deadline.

I think part of the value of NaNo is gleaning a greater understanding of what it takes to write a novel. It allows someone to understand how much and how little work it can be to complete a first draft. It's a lot of work coming up with the story and getting it down on the page, but at the same time 1666 words is a very digestible and doable number when compared to the greater whole.

Generally speaking, it shows that slow and steady can win the race when it comes to novel writing. This is of course not dismissing binge writers.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
What I gathered, and maybe I'm off the mark, is that people who want to be writers should be spending time on their craft and not sitting around on social media talking about it.
That was my impression too, mixed with a healthy dose of, "You haven't worked as hard as I have so you don't deserve to call yourself a writer if I don't" attitude.

I'm sure the snarky tone was intentional. Maybe he thinks it lends some gravity to his words, when it just comes off making him sound bitter and arrogant.

If he, or any other writer, bases their opinions of themselves and their own potential off what others around them are doing (or not doing), then they're foolish. Belief in yourself is one of the few things a writer MUST have. That belief may wane at times, but you either have faith in your ability and the tenacity to see it come to fruition, or you will fail.

I'd say the only other requirement is the desire to write, no matter what. If you have that unshakable need to write, does "the market" even matter? It shouldn't.

Yes, someone may be able to produce one good story...maybe everyone has that in them. But, stealing the words of another to express my belief on writerly success....

"Anyone can become a writer. The trick is staying a writer." - Harlan Ellison

Who gives a crap what people call themselves? How does someone else's desire affect you, even if it is based on assumption or rooted in a lack of experience? Everyone starts somewhere.

What you call yourself just doesn't matter. It's what you believe that counts. That goes well beyond the title of "writer".
 
Last edited:
Top