# "War on #amwriting" and a rebuttal



## deilaitha (Feb 21, 2015)

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 The author trashes unpublished fantasy and science fiction writers (but how exactly can you be a published one without having been unpublished at some point?).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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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


----------



## acapes (Feb 21, 2015)

Hashtags bug the shit out of me but I agree, first article was a real turkey


----------



## Svrtnsse (Feb 21, 2015)

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.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 21, 2015)

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 Writer one is a total doofenschmirtz for placing all amateur unpublished writers into the same group.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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 22, 2015)

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 (Feb 22, 2015)

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.


----------



## deilaitha (Feb 22, 2015)

Philip Overby said:


> 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.


----------



## deilaitha (Feb 22, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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.


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 22, 2015)

My biggest issue with the first article was the author's attacks on, and complete dismissal of, science fiction and fantasy.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 22, 2015)

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 (Feb 22, 2015)

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.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 22, 2015)

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 (Feb 22, 2015)

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 (Feb 22, 2015)

Amanita said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2015)

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 (Feb 22, 2015)

Philip Overby said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2015)

Philip Overby said:


> 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".


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 22, 2015)

Philip Overby said:


> But I don't think anyone should need an excuse to write.



Maybe they shouldn't, ideally. But this isn't a perfect world and even people who want to write often need a little extra motivation or an excuse to tell their family or something. Desire doesn't make things easy. 

Personally, I don't have any respect for anyone who decides what other writers "should" or "shouldn't" do to be writers. What other writers do or don't do isn't anyone else's business unless they're paying the writers bills or the writer is asking them directly.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 22, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


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



One of the things that helped me get my butt in the chair was listening to Mur Lafferty's podcast. She shared her struggles and provided sobering facts on the writing process. She is someone who I have a great deal of respect for. Long before she got her book deal, she walked the walk. What I mean by that is she treated writing as more than a hobby and acted as a professional would. She said that she may not be the most talented writer but she was going to be the most determined. She believed that as long as she kept at it, she would out last every one because they would give up long before she did.


----------



## Philip Overby (Feb 23, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> 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.



I think slow and steady has become my current way as well. I'm not disparaging NaNoWriMo in any way. I just feel that it can kind of serve as a launching pad for good habits (reaching goals, making plans, etc.) If it keeps being useful for people, awesome. But I felt this year it served me better to work slowly.



			
				T.Allen.Smith said:
			
		

> 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.



@Mythpoet: When I said "But I don't think anyone should need an excuse to write" T.Allen's quote above matches more of what I meant. I just worded it poorly. I meant that if writers want to write, they'll make it happen, even if it's only a little when they can make time. They don't necessarily need NaNoWriMo or other similar challenges. If they help though, great.


----------



## psychotick (Feb 23, 2015)

Hi,

I actually enjoyed the first article - it made me laugh. And yes there are a few kernals of truth in it for all of us. Too many people in my view do spend their days talking about how they're going to write the next great novel which will be a movie success as well, but never seem to do more than that. And the internet has been a great place for many of those people to write about their writing and then because it seems to go with the territory, pour scorn on everyone else who writes, while never actually writing anything. They do annoy me sometimes.

And I quite like his vision of writers being the new cool. Thus far those I've told about my writing haven't yet come along and said - "Wow, you're a writer - that's so cool" - but it could happen. One day? Once upon a time it was the muso's who were cool by writing their own songs which never got heard and not selling out because they had to be true to the music. Now it's us!!! Who knew?!

But to blast everyone with the same bilious wind is of course grossly unfair.

To me it seems there is a simple definition of being a writer. Do you write? Do you put all your spare time and energy into it? If so you're a writer. And then if you take the next step and publish, congratulations, you're an author. For good or bad. If on the other hand you talk about writing, scribble a few words here and there and wax poetic about your work while trashing others, you're a something else that I won't type.

As for his attacks on fantasy and space opera - escapist literature as it is. I assume he isn't going to read any of my books! (They lack of those extra sales will really hurt!) But hey who knows - maybe one day I'll switch to literary fiction. And who knows - maybe I'll have all the pigs saddled and ready to fly too!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 23, 2015)

The writer of the first article wants to blame the Internet. Example:
"The internet has mutated reasonable people into wannabe writers"

Not it hasn't. People have *always* thought they had a novel in them. Since as long as there has been general literacy, there have been half-finished manuscripts in drawers. He thinks this is new? He thinks there weren't people imagining they could be the next Charles Dickens if only they could get a chapter or two in the next magazine? If he wants to complain, he needs to understand he is complaining about the human condition itself. Of course a man's reach exceeds his grasp, or what's a Smashwords for?

He also is critical of quality. Indeed. Here Theodore Sturgeon comes to our aid:  seventy percent of everything is crap. QED.

He seems to have a problem with the notion that there might be more writers than readers. Srsly? I wonder if he feels the same way about painting or sculpting or music. Besides, he doesn't really mean it. He means he would hate it if there were more writers than *paying* readers. Harumph.

Finally, and this is the punch line, the only place this cavil against the Internet is in a magazine that appears only on ...  

oh never mind.


----------



## Devor (Feb 23, 2015)

I think the dialogue is appropriate.  There are writers who have said they don't like to talk about their work because talking about it takes away the thrill of writing.  And there's truth there.  It can be a vicarious, substitutional thrill.

Like Phil says, sometimes we need a reality check.  Part of being a worthwhile community is reminding one another that it takes a lot of Talent, Attitude, Luck and Effort to write a good T.A.L.E.  (Aren't I clever?  No?  Anyone?  Shucks.)

By far, most people who try to write, most of the people on the #amwriting hashtag, even most of the members of this community, aren't going to make any significant money with their writing.

That's just the truth, and there's no sense in dancing around it.

But there are ways to do it, and there are ways that these communities can help.  We can give each other support, community, enthusiasm, help with your technique, and yes, the occasional reality check.

But let me ask you.  How many people do you think read the first article and thought, "That's so true, _those_ people, grr..." and how many thought, "That's so true, _and I need to take this step and this step and this step _to keep from falling into the all-talk-no-action trap..." ?  And aside from cutting off those communities and/or quitting all together, what are those steps?

 - Write every day.
 - Make sure my skills are improving (by some standard or another).
 - Connect my work to an audience.
 - Find a community to hold me accountable.
 - Put together a "mastermind group" that will push my work through the final stretch.

There, I think, is the checklist for making your work professional.  Is what you're doing building you towards those steps?  Is Mythic Scribes or #amwriting?  I believe they sure can be.  But that's up to you and what you make of it.


----------



## Russ (Feb 23, 2015)

Now that I have taken the time to read the first article for a second time, I kind of enjoyed it.  I found it funny and thought provoking.

I read it as being about bigger issues in our society than just writing but he seems to be using unpublished writers as a currently trendy symptom of a much larger set of problems.  A lot of the stuff he said I agree with the point of.  Not only that he says some pretty funny stuff there.

I think his point is really about the downgrading or "dumbing down" of people and accomplishments, and what they are for, and what they mean. It's about our culture being far too self-referential and the ego running wild. I think he berates a vast lack of humility we are seeing a lot these days.  Here are a few examples:



> The opportunity to boast is one of the prime motivations of modern behaviour. Nobody would ever participate in a marathon if they weren’t allowed to tell everyone that they were.






> NaNoWriMo’s got a lot to answer for. In 2012, the website says, ‘341,375 participants started the month as auto mechanics, out-of-work actors, and middle school English teachers. They walked away novelists.’





> As long as you believe in your talent, regardless of evidence, the whole world will soon surely follow. And if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because it’s YOUR opinion that’s cardinal.





> A friend of a friend once introduced himself as a journalist. He wrote for a self-published blog. I pre-emptively unfriended him and cried a torrent of tears for the modern world.





> Don’t call yourself a novelist unless you’re paid to write novels. You take your clothes off every day but you don’t introduce yourself to strangers as a stripper, right?



I think writing is a really amazing profession and many people do it an injustice when they call themselves "writers" or "novelists" without really accomplishing that goal.  

I am all for democratization of professions and giving kids participation medals, but when we grow up we have to put some of that away.  

Writing can be a very healthy thing to do.  But just because I talk to a friend about their problems does not make me a therapist or life coach.  Or at least I hope not.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 23, 2015)

>Don’t call yourself a novelist unless you’re paid to write novels. 

*sigh* So money is the only meaningful measure of art? 

"An artist who sells his paintings on the street can call himself a painter, even if his works don't sell." Van Gogh never said that, but he could have. 


>A friend of a friend once introduced himself as a journalist. He wrote for a self-published blog. I pre-emptively unfriended him and cried a torrent of tears for the modern world.

Said the man whose work appears in a self-published blog. And anyway, don't be so dramatic. A torrent of tears for the modern world? If you want me to take your critique seriously, tone down the hyperbole.

And if you want me to chuckle at your humor, try doing something other than sneering at the kid in class who dresses funny and is absurdly earnest. Most of us grew out of that when we graduated.

The question of what makes a novelist, when *do* I get to call myself an author, is germane and interesting. The self-pub industry has reset the game and no one really knows how the new lines will be drawn, or if they even will. 

My own take is that all of this will turn out to be little more than a shift in medium. There have always been writers who were never published in anything more than the local newspaper or a regional poetry magazine or a vanity press. Some were content with that, some despaired at it. The modern version will be a book that sells twelve copies on Smashwords, of which eight went to friends and relatives. Does it still "count"?  Sure. It matters to the author (who may be content or may despair) and it matters to those who read the book. Maybe there will even be the electronic equivalent of finding a dusty book on a back shelf thirty years after the author died. 

IOW, there never was a time when there were Authors who lived in the bright-and-shiny world of Published, while there lived in darkness countless millions of the incompetently silent. There long has been and long will be a wide continuum of authorial states, ranging from "I have this cool idea" to tattered notebooks in forgotten drawers, to completed novel buried under a pile of rejection notices, to mid-listed-and-forgotten, to startlingly famous. And posthumously famous. We have a new medium alongside the old.

Oh, and there will always be self-important curmudgeons who get noticed primarily by being rude while pretending to be funny or profound.

And the Civilized World, unaccountably, yet stands.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Feb 24, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> Oh, and there will always be self-important curmudgeons who get noticed primarily by being rude while pretending to be funny or profound.


This was my biggest problem with the first article.

Whatever legit point he was getting at was drowned in a barrage of attacks that are supposed to be funny. I couldn't really see his points as being legit because it was "don't talk about writing" and "don't write crap." So you're only supposed to write if you can write well, or you can only call yourself a writer after you sold books?

I wasn't sure what he wanted writers (or writer wannabes) to do.



Anyway, my current project is art. I'll call myself an "artist" for now, and go with "writer-slash-artist" when my next short is available for purchase. Or when I write my next story. Whichever comes first.


----------



## acapes (Feb 24, 2015)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Whatever legit point he was getting at was drowned in a barrage of attacks that are supposed to be funny.



Agreed - I could feel the 'hipster' oozing from his words basically.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Feb 24, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> this isn't a perfect world and even people who want to write often need a little extra motivation or an excuse to *tell their family* or something. Desire doesn't make things easy.


This^ is huge for me.

When I'm creating anything, that is time NOT being spent directly with my kids. My seven-year-old is 2700 words into a story of her own, so it helps that she'll sit by me and write when I do. We can also draw together. However, the wife needs to approve of what I do.

For my current art project, my work will be submitted for approval to a woman on the team of a gaming site. She's particularly interested in my illustrations of warrior women, and she made it clear she doesn't want them to be "highly sexualized" (which I took to mean: don't "female armor" them). Getting my wife's blessing on this project was easy given that instruction, and getting compliments on my amazon's side-slit dress from my brother (who draws his own comic) cleared any lingering doubts that my artwork has improved considerably.

Yeah, eff that blogger guy. I'm an "artist" because my brother who went to art school and sells art said so. And because I said so. And because my art isn't crap. I got lots of reasons.



I definitely need to talk about it--"it" being whatever art or story is my current WIP--or else I'm going to get demotivated fast. That's what happened with the last story that I was writing, but not talking about. So no one knew. So no one gave a crap. After a month, neither did I.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 24, 2015)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I definitely need to talk about it--"it" being whatever art or story is my current WIP--or else I'm going to get demotivated fast. That's what happened with the last story that I was writing, but not talking about. So no one knew. So no one gave a crap. After a month, neither did I.



I'm exactly the same. I absolutely have to talk about it or I get bored or discouraged or both. Fortunately, my husband is great to talk these things over with. We have very similar reading interests (he's actually the one who got me really into fantasy) and he's very smart, always challenging me with questions I haven't addressed yet. Really gets my creative juices going.


----------



## Philip Overby (Feb 24, 2015)

I don't see anything wrong personally with talking about your work. It's when that's all one is doing is when it becomes an issue. 

As an aside, I really don't feel like I can weigh in properly in this discussion because I have about the most ideal situation to do as much writing as possible right now.

1. I'm not "working" in the traditional sense.
2. I have all day to write.
3. I don't have kids.

So I guess I'm in a different boat than most. It's not fair for me to give the advice "Figure out a time to write" or "Spend all your free time writing" when people have a crapload of other priorities. I guess the main thing is figure out what makes you most comfortable. I certainly encourage others to chat about their writing, but also make some time (however short or long that you can afford) and use it wisely. 

Since I probably won't be working until April, I have at least one full month to write. My hope is to make the very most of my opportunity because I don't know how often I'm going to get another.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Feb 24, 2015)

I think "Figure out a time to write" is fair advice. It's just that, for some people, that time may be limited to one day a week or one hour a night.

If anything, people with kids and day-jobs really _need_ to figure out what that time is.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 24, 2015)

Philip Overby said:


> As an aside, I really don't feel like I can weigh in properly in this discussion because I have about the most ideal situation to do as much writing as possible right now.
> 
> 1. I'm not "working" in the traditional sense.
> 2. I have all day to write.
> ...



I admit that as a very, very busy mother of 5 young kids it bugs the crap out of me when people who have your advantages talk about "just finding time" or "setting your priorities". (Not aiming this at you personally, since you acknowledge that you have a better situation, but at people who do this in general.) I have my priorities set and my #1 priority is my family. It always will be, but they won't always need me to the extent they do now. I fully acknowledge that I do not view writing as my career. My family is my vocation and writing is more of a hobby. But that doesn't mean I don't take it seriously or that I shouldn't be allowed to called myself a writer. 

Many "professional writers" tend to look down on those of us who write as a hobby and plan to publish as a hobby. They seem to think that the moment the word "hobby" enters the picture that means the writer isn't serious, is just playing around for fun, and won't bother trying to do their best. They assume we'll also approach publishing in the same casual manner, flooding the internets with badly formatted ebooks and terrible cover art. 

I don't know when the term "hobby" became associated with this idea of people just casually playing around with something that seems fun at the time, but clearly they don't really CARE about it so they can't possibly do it right. Hobbyist can, in fact, be more serious than professionals. Hobbyists often pour their heart and soul into their hobbies and give it everything they've got. I love fantasy and storytelling with all my heart and I love the world I've created and the characters that populate it. I may not have a lot of time to devote to it, but I take it very seriously.


----------



## Russ (Feb 24, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I don't know when the term "hobby" became associated with this idea of people just casually playing around with something that seems fun at the time, but clearly they don't really CARE about it so they can't possibly do it right. Hobbyist can, in fact, be more serious than professionals. Hobbyists often pour their heart and soul into their hobbies and give it everything they've got. I love fantasy and storytelling with all my heart and I love the world I've created and the characters that populate it. I may not have a lot of time to devote to it, but I take it very seriously.



A friend of mine likes to argue that the word amateur is a very powerful one, because it is based on "love" or "passion" of a pursuit rather than its pursuit for mere monetary gain, and I get that argument.

But there is a certain pretentiousness to defining oneself as something when one pursues it as a hobby rather than as a vocation, and I think the people who have made the sacrifice and taken the time to turn it into a serious vocation deserve some respect for what they  have done.

I like to play soccer.  It is a hobby.  I train for it, I play hard, I take it seriously.  I am not a soccer player.  Phillip Lahm is a soccer player, I am a guy who plays soccer from time to time.

I do home repairs on my own when I have time.  I do the best that I can and am not bad at it.  I am not a carpenter or an electrician or a plumber.

Just because writing does not require a formal license does not mean that we should not respect it as a vocation.  I think everyone hear knows just how hard it can be and how hard it is to make a living at it.

I would not yet call myself a writer or a novelist.  But with some hard work and the help of the folks around here I hope to become  one. Until then I will not hold myself out as something I am not.  A hobby does not define my place in society.

I think however if you put the word "aspiring" in front of either of those terms it puts it in a much better context.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 24, 2015)

Russ said:


> But there is a certain pretentiousness to defining oneself as something when one pursues it as a hobby rather than as a vocation, and I think the people who have made the sacrifice and taken the time to turn it into a serious vocation deserve some respect for what they  have done.



I disagree. People define themselves by what they love and what they do. Anyone who writes is a writer. And I dislike looking at professional writers as people who have made a sacrifice. What they made was a choice. A business decision. They don't deserve acclaim for making a business decision. Their reward is that they get paid. I have respect for any hardworking writer and anyone who devotes their time and energy to the art of storytelling, it doesn't matter if they're making money off of it or not. The whole idea that making money off of it makes it more respectable is something I find reprehensible.


----------



## Russ (Feb 24, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I disagree. People define themselves by what they love and what they do. Anyone who writes is a writer. And I dislike looking at professional writers as people who have made a sacrifice. What they made was a choice. A business decision. They don't deserve acclaim for making a business decision. Their reward is that they get paid. I have respect for any hardworking writer and anyone who devotes their time and energy to the art of storytelling, it doesn't matter if they're making money off of it or not. The whole idea that making money off of it makes it more respectable is something I find reprehensible.



Actually one can both make a decision and a sacrifice.  They are not mutually exclusive.  A writer has done both.

You seem to want to import ideas that are not there. It is perfectly respectable to be an aspiring writer (or an aspiring plummer or soccer player or whatever), but it does not yet mean that you have accomplished it.  Being a writer or a novelist implies an accomplishment.  Do I think the guy who has just summitted Mount Everest deserve more respect than the guy who is just training to do it?  Damned right I do.

But I guess by your standard if I from time to time take care of my nieces and nephews and try to do it well I can call myself a parent.

Or if I train hard and play war games very seriously I am a soldier.

I read A LOT of very high quality books on history and often write on the subject.  Can I call myself a historian?

At what point do terms that should signify a significant accomplishment become meaningless in a self-referential approach?  

Pretty quickly it appears.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 24, 2015)

Russ said:


> Actually one can both make a decision and a sacrifice.  They are not mutually exclusive.  A writer has done both.



Choosing to pursue a particular career is in, in itself, a sacrifice. It might be a sacrifice in particular circumstances, but we are talking in general here. Choosing to pursue a career as a professional writer is not, in itself, a sacrifice. It might be a sacrifice to a particular author in a particular situation, but again, that's not what we're talking about. 



Russ said:


> You seem to want to import ideas that are not there. It is perfectly respectable to be an aspiring writer (or an aspiring plummer or soccer player or whatever), but it does not yet mean that you have accomplished it.  Being a writer or a novelist implies an accomplishment.  Do I think the guy who has just summitted Mount Everest deserve more respect than the guy who is just training to do it?  Damned right I do.



The counterexamples that you are using show that you do not understand the points I am making. In the mountain climbing example, I am not making a distinction between someone training to climb mountains and someone who makes it to the summit of Everest. The distinction is between someone who has a hobby of climbing mountains regularly, they train, they put everything they've got into it, but maybe they never manage to get to the top of any significant mountain. Still, they are regularly on mountains doing actual climbing. This type of person I am contrasting with someone who gets a corporate sponsorship, lots of fancy equipment, guides, and whatnot. This person makes a concentrated effort and manages to summit a significant mountain. 

The point I am making between the two is that there are many "professionals" out there who would look at the guy who never quite made it to the top of the mountain and automatically assume it's because he spends all of his time at the gym talking about mountain climbing. The professional assumes that because the hobbyist isn't getting sponsored or paid and never manages to reach a summit, that means he doesn't take it seriously, doesn't actually put the work in, doesn't actually spend time climbing mountains. 

My point is that this is a FALSE assumption that a lot of "professionals" make. 



Russ said:


> But I guess by your standard if I from time to time take care of my nieces and nephews and try to do it well I can call myself a parent.
> 
> Or if I train hard and play war games very seriously I am a soldier.
> 
> ...



You should beware of importing ideas yourself because your analogies are ridiculously irrelevant to my point. Obviously you cannot claim to be something if you do not meet the criteria for it. The criteria for being a writer is that you write, not that you make money from selling your writing. AS much as certain people like to pretend that it takes more than that, it doesn't. Saying otherwise is just trying to make professional writers seem more important by putting barriers between them and "aspiring" writers. No, sorry, I'm not buying it. 

ANY literary creation, whether you sell it for profit or not, is an accomplishment.


----------



## Russ (Feb 24, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> You should beware of importing ideas yourself because your analogies are ridiculously irrelevant to my point. Obviously you cannot claim to be something if you do not meet the criteria for it. The criteria for being a writer is that you write, not that you make money from selling your writing. AS much as certain people like to pretend that it takes more than that, it doesn't. Saying otherwise is just trying to make professional writers seem more important by putting barriers between them and "aspiring" writers. No, sorry, I'm not buying it.



Actually I see the contra as being true.   Amateurs referring to themselves as "writers" or "novelists" are trying to make themselves seem more successful and accomplished then they are, and to suggest that there is no real difference between those who write as a vocation and those who write as a hobby.

Perhaps the term writer is too nebulous to be useful.  Would it make more sense to use more specific terms?  Would it trouble someone to use the terms "aspiring writer" vs. "working writer"?

There are reasons that groups like SFWA and other serious writing groups have criteria for entry.

Perhaps I will drop down to the pub tonight for a couple of beers and introduce myself as a footballer.  Should be interesting.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 24, 2015)

Someone mentioned historians as an example. Being one of those, I can perhaps add something to the discussion (which I regard as a worthwhile one).  As was noted, plenty of people read about the past and even write about it, but that does not make them a historian. This begs the question: so, what *does* make a historian?

No, it's not the job. I'm a good example. I have a PhD in history. I have a couple of minor publications. I'm adjunct faculty. But I only call myself a historian to non-professionals, and I only call myself a professor when the distinction is not significant. 

The line between professional historian and amateur comes at the point of publication, specifically the process of peer review. You can call yourself a historian when what you write is read by other historians. They may like it or they may blast it out of the water, but it gets read and it gets read *before* it gets published. The medium is irrelevant--could be print, could be electronic. What's relevant is the peer review.

I submit that something like this may evolve regarding fiction publishing. Regardless of the medium, if the manuscript undergoes critical editing and approval, then it is a cut above the work that is entirely self-published. This is not a reflection on quality, mind you. Plenty of dreck gets through publishing houses. But it is at least a consistent and clear, objective measuring point. On one side you can call yourself an author (or, if you prefer, a published author or professional author). On the other side, you cannot. Maybe those get called writers, or aspiring authors, or whatever. Language is flexible and one must not lean on it too heavily.

Then again, maybe the clutter will never get cleared up and this discussion will form an Eternal Golden Thread.

As a postscript, a word on words. Someone already pointed out that "amateur" comes from the Latin "amare" which means to love. An amateur is one who does it for love. I wish the word had that connotation in the popular mind. Someone else used the word vocation, another excellent word. "Vocare" means "to call" -- a vocation is literally a calling, an old-fashioned notion that I quite like. If I were to choose one, it would be that I have a calling, because if I don't write for a while I almost literally hear it calling to me. Unfortunately, as I said, language is flexible and these words don't retain their original connotations enough to use them in their original sense. 

Certainly just writing doesn't make one a writer, for "writing" can include business reports, ad copy, and even journalism. ;-)  We still don't have a good, widely accepted word for what most of us are doing here.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 24, 2015)

Wow. That original piece. Insulting to fantasy, sci-fi, religion, human imagination itself, I'm hard pressed to think of a section of the populace who _wouldn't _be offended by it.


----------



## Chessie (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm late to the conversation but figured I'd give my 2 cents anyway.  It boggles my mind that some authors feel threatened by the rise of self-publishers/internet fiction writers out there. Just do your thing and focus on it. Competition is good. And has selling books ever been easy? Surely there's been more fiction out there than people could read since forever ago. The first author sounds bitter and has "poor sport" written all over him.

I think its great that so many people are out there writing. I just recently joined Wattpad and its overloaded with stories some of good quality, and others not. But who cares? I rather those tweens be on there writing poems for each other than out on the streets getting in trouble. Writing is a healthy interest and it allows us to speak from the depths of our soul. Everyone has a story to tell and there's nothing wrong with sharing that story in however way you want to.

The article's first line was enough to offend me. Discredit from that moment.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 24, 2015)

Russ said:


> But I guess by your standard if I from time to time take care of my nieces and nephews and try to do it well I can call myself a parent.
> 
> Or if I train hard and play war games very seriously I am a soldier.
> 
> I read A LOT of very high quality books on history and often write on the subject.  Can I call myself a historian?



There is a difference between all of these examples and being a writer.

Your parent analogy is flawed, taking care of children does not make one a parent. Donating genetic material and producing "the natural objects of your bounty" (as an aside I have been waiting all month to use this phrase outside of a law school setting and I thank you for that) makes one a parent. Taking care of children is not part of that equation, donating genetic material is.

Being a soldier requires being a part of a certain organization, the military. Performing war games and training actively makes one, at best, a militia-man. (One that I doubt is authorized by the central government). 

Both of these are very different from being a writer. To be a writer one has to do one thing: write. This encompasses several different types of writing. For example, I am in law school. I hope to become a lawyer. I am a legal writer. This is because I write things concerning the law. I have written papers, motions, memos, and helped judicial decisions concerning various motions. People who write news articles about legal issues are writers, they may even be legal writers. People who write blogs about the law are writers. None of them are lawyers. That requires something else, a certification. Like parents or soldiers there is an extra step involved here to be something more than a legal writer or just a writer.

Further, I am a writer. I write novels. (None are published, but I am trying to get one of them up to scratch to send to an agent.) The simple act of writing makes one a writer. I am not an author. That requires something more. To be published. When one is published one becomes an author. That is the difference. Writers write. Authors get published.

TL;DR. Your analogies are flawed. Both of them require something more than just doing the action. By way of example there are several different types of writing. Even in the legal field there are journalists, bloggers, law students and lawyers--just to name three. All of them are legal writers. Only lawyers are lawyers because of a special certification required to practice law. To be a writer one has to write. That is the only requirement. To be an author one must write and get published.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 24, 2015)

>To be an author one must write and get published.

But that's sort of the point here--the nature of "published" has changed. Do you mean only published in print? Do you include Amazon? How about Wattpad or Scribophile? How about a blog publication?

There are so many degrees of "published" nowadays, the old line (which was somewhat illusory itself) has disappeared and the once-clear term "published" has been rendered very nearly meaningless.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 24, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> >To be an author one must write and get published.
> 
> But that's sort of the point here--the nature of "published" has changed. Do you mean only published in print? Do you include Amazon? How about Wattpad or Scribophile? How about a blog publication?
> 
> There are so many degrees of "published" nowadays, the old line (which was somewhat illusory itself) has disappeared and the once-clear term "published" has been rendered very nearly meaningless.



The line is of course blurry now and there is no true demarcation at this point. However, one possible way to delineate the point would be to classify based on the type of publishing. Generally when I hear published author my first inclination is to believe they are traditionally published. As such, if I were to self-publish (I won't I don't have the time nor energy) I would identify myself as a self-published author and just call my self a published author if a company picked up one of my books. That though is a personal preference.

As for the Wattpads and Scribophiles I am not sure what they are, to be honest. But, after a brief search and perusal of what I could discover I wouldn't call them publishing, especially the scribophile one. Both of these are fun and interesting but not necessarily "publication" as I believe the term should be used. The problem I have with calling them publishing is that it's not really publishing. Like blogging is not necessarily journalism. the quality in either can be good, professional grade even. But it is still not, technically, published. Although, that distinction is artificial and more of a personal preference. In short, no I would not call myself an author if I put my works on Wattpad and Scribophiles.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 24, 2015)

Russ said:


> But there is a certain pretentiousness to defining oneself as something when one pursues it as a hobby rather than as a vocation, and I think the people who have made the sacrifice and taken the time to turn it into a serious vocation deserve some respect for what they  have done.
> 
> I like to play soccer.  It is a hobby.  I train for it, I play hard, I take it seriously.  I am not a soccer player.  Phillip Lahm is a soccer player, I am a guy who plays soccer from time to time.



I don't agree with this at all. I play hockey. I train hard for it. I'm a hockey player, a person who plays hockey. It's as simple as that. But that's my stance on things. But I wonder what a professionally published author thinks of this. Taken from this webpage. The Key Thing Aspiring Writers Need to Do to Become Legit



> She asked the audience, “Do you write?”
> 
> All heads nodded.
> 
> She replied, “Then you’re not an aspiring writer. You’re a writer!”



I've heard similar sentiments expressed by other professional writers too. They talk about if you want to be a professional, act professional. If you act as an amateur then you're an amateur.


----------



## Trick (Feb 24, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> I've heard similar sentiments expressed by other professional writers too. They talk about if you want to be a professional, act professional. If you act as an amateur then you're an amateur.



Bragging about writing when you've never finished anything is amateurish. Bragging about finishing a writing project when it is total garbage (otherwise known as 'practicing') is also amateurish. I think that was the original article's point but I think he should have made it without the bitterness and pointed insults. And anyone who disparages entire genres like that deserves a life-changing blow over the head. But I did get his point.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 24, 2015)

The thing that amazes me is the idea that somehow, what another calls themselves, impacts me in any way. 

Who cares really? Does it affect your ability to pursue your craft? Does it affect your income?
I certainly hope it doesn't affect your self-image. If it does, you've got a bigger problem to deal with. 

Define what you are, on your own terms. For me, I'm a writer when I'm making a decent income. That's my threshold. Create your own and forget all this non-sense of what another person thinks you are or aren't.

It's a complete waste of time and mental effort.


----------



## Russ (Feb 24, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> I've heard similar sentiments expressed by other professional writers too. They talk about if you want to be a professional, act professional. If you act as an amateur then you're an amateur.



I am a trial lawyer.  The word for a lawyer who says he is a trial lawyer but has not done a substantial amount or at least one real trial is "poser" or worse if not in mixed company.

And I can definately understand why someone who is in the very large industry of selling advice to aspiring writers would want people to think of themselves as writers.

You are right that if you want to be a professional, you should act professionally.  *If you want to be a writer*, you should write.  Acting professionally does not make you a professional...


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 24, 2015)

The thing that really bothers me in discussions like this is that all of the people who "brag" about being a writer without having finished anything all of the so-called "amateur" writers muddying definitions and what not... are all products of the imaginations of the people arguing against them. It's this imaginary group of people that must surely exist, or otherwise what would we be arguing about? Writers who are mad about other writers who don't meet their own standards invent a sort of irresponsible, immature bogeyman of an aspiring writer in their heads that they can get indignant about. But I've never met one of these people in the various writerly places I hang around in. 

I've never encountered a person who called themselves a writer who didn't dedicate a significant portion of their free time to the task. I've never seen anyone "bragging" about their skills regardless of the fact they haven't finished anything. This forum is a perfect example of writers who haven't published but who take what they do seriously, who are always trying to learn and improve, who are trying to bring their craft to the point where they are ready to publish. Are those people not writers? I defy you to claim such. Everyone here who puts words down on a page with the intent of creating narrative entertainment for an audience is a writer.


----------



## Russ (Feb 24, 2015)

Just because you claim not to have met these people does not mean they do not exist.  I have met many people who claim to be a writer who have done virtually nothing in that regard.  And I don't even hang around in "writerly" places.

Perhaps that is the difference.  People who hand around in "writerly places" might take their craft much more seriously than others.  Can't say for sure.



Mythopoet said:


> I defy you to claim such. Everyone here who puts words down on a page with the intent of creating narrative entertainment for an audience is a writer.



Looks like I am going to have to defy you.  I still believe it is pretentious and disrespectful to call oneself a writer unless one makes a vocation of that craft.  To me it is simply lowering the brass ring so many people are striving for.  

This chap (a writer) has a similar perspective.  And it appears he has encountered such people as well, even in his Crossfit class.

He makes a very similar point to the first article but with a much calmer perspective.  It appears he is defying you as well.

Can You Call Yourself A Writer? | Thought Catalog

There are plenty of arguments on both sides of the debate on when to call yourself a writer.  But I honestly think that if the term is to have any value of meaning, or be worth striving for, we should give it some dignity and apply some humility before we chose to apply it to ourselves.

And I make breakfast every morning but won't introduce myself as a cook.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 24, 2015)

I call my husband an excellent cook all the time. He's spent the last 12 years improving his cooking and baking skills at home and the man makes truly delicious food. What I wouldn't call him is a chef. See the difference? 

If not, we'll just have to agree to disagree, Russ. I refuse to look at the world the way you do.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 24, 2015)

Isn't all of this hand wringing and squabbling over who should be called a writer missing the point? It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day it's what you do that counts. There's lots of talk about defending the value of the label from pretenders, but the label has no value. The only thing that has value is the work produced. You are working on something, making progress or at least enjoying the journey? Congratulations. You finished a book? Congratulations. You were published in some fashion? Congratulations. People read it? Congratulations. People paid _money_ to read it? Congratulations! Wondering if you should or shouldn't call yourself a writer? Doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Except the people who write these articles apparently. I can call myself a writer and spend my days playing Call of Duty, or I can strenuously deny being a writer and pen a novel every year until I die while occasionally collecting checks from Penguin-Random House. Or vice-versa even. But to anyone not hung up on semantics the only thing that matters is what I produce, followed by how good it is. Calling yourself a writer does neither good nor harm.


----------



## Philip Overby (Feb 24, 2015)

I guess at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what you call yourself, as long as you're happy with your output. 

Disclaimer: This is my own personal definition of what being a writer means to me. Meaning how I identify myself only. Maybe some others can relate to it. 

From about 2002-2010, I spent years not finishing novels and planning new ones. I'd say a vast majority of my free time was spent not finishing novels. At that period in my life, I wouldn't have called myself a writer. I was failing at being a writer. I was attempting to be a writer. But since I wasn't finishing anything, I couldn't really call myself a writer. 

During this same period, I was teaching. I got paid to teach. Teaching made me money. When people asked what I did, I said, "A teacher." If I would have said "a writer" I would have felt like I was lying to myself. Except the odd publication here and there, I didn't _feel_ like a writer.

Fast-forward to 2011-now. These years have been the most serious I've taken my writing. I've completed some stuff, had more work published (gotten paid now and again, which is always awesome) and am now in a situation in which I can actually write full-time and do other work part-time. I spent most of the day yesterday writing. However, I'm still not making a living at writing. Nonetheless, I feel like a writer now. The biggest difference for me was failing at finishing novels vs. finishing work and submitting. Sure, I may not be a professional writer yet, but I do see myself as a writer. 

That's my distinction anyway. If I complete things, I'm a writer. If I don't complete things, I'm aspiring to complete things aka be a writer.

Edit because of Ninja'd: At the end of the day though, as Mindfire said, it doesn't matter what you call yourself, just get the work done.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 24, 2015)

Philip Overby said:


> Disclaimer: This is my own personal definition of what being a writer means to me. Meaning how I identify myself only. Maybe some others can relate to it.



I respect you for only defining this for yourself. It's people who go around defining what other people can and can't be that I don't respect.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 24, 2015)

I think Phillip is on to something. I personally don't really think of myself as "a writer". Not because I don't think I've "earned" the label, but because I consider the question irrelevant. I do not label myself. I do not think of myself. I think only of the work, the process of the work and the completion of the work. All else is void. It's almost zen now that I think about it. But that's my two cents. Call yourself a writer. Or don't. At the end of the day, only the work matters.


----------



## Devor (Feb 24, 2015)

If I may, I think this is getting a little silly.  A writer is somebody who writes.  A professional writer is somebody who makes an income writing.  Sometimes "professional" is implied, and the word writer isn't appropriate, and sometimes it isn't, and the word writer is just fine.  I wouldn't list the word writer on my resume - not yet.  But in a casual sense if you write regularly you are a writer.

Somebody mentioned golf.  If I saw you on a golf field and said, "Oh, I didn't know you were a golfer," you wouldn't be expected to say, "No, I've never made a dime golfing, I'm just a person who plays golf."  But you wouldn't list golfer on your resume, either.

But the article didn't even talk about the "writer" label.  It talked about the word "novelist" being used for someone who finished NaNo, and "journalist" being used for a blogger.  Leaving aside the latter - which does sound like a leap - "novelist" is a little more murky.  But I agree with NaNo - if you've finished a novel, I would consider you a novelist.

Then, of course, there's "author," which I think implies a finished, published, significant work.  If you've got a book available, you're an author.  Maybe a cruddy one, but still an author.

All that said, there are definitely people who talk about writing and don't actually do any of it.  But so what?  Talk is cheap, but "cheap" still has value.

I don't know the #amwriting community.  I don't know how helpful that community is at encouraging people to actually write and do better.  But I do know Mythic Scribes pretty well.  Our members are great contributors, and I wouldn't want to see anybody frowned upon for not writing as regularly as they would clearly like to.

I'm all for the wake up call, the occasional reminder that we need to talk less and write more if we want to take our writing further.  But in my opinion, this is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to be the target of that sentiment.  There's no point in antagonizing each other over some meta-facade of who is or isn't a writer.  That isn't supporting anybody who's trying to take their work a little further.



Ninja'ed by three posts.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 24, 2015)

Russ said:


> I am a trial lawyer.  The word for a lawyer who says he is a trial lawyer but has not done a substantial amount or at least one real trial is "poser" or worse if not in mixed company.



To acquire all these labels you bring up there is a specific and well defined process you have to go through. In writing, it isn't so clearly defined. You're comparing apples to oranges.  

But as mentioned above, it really doesn't matter. That's something I've lost sight of while participating in this thread. It's not like a software developer calling themselves a software engineer, where the title Engineer carries with it a very specific meaning and set of skills.

Writer, novelist, etc., I completely agree that it doesn't affect me in the least. I doesn't matter if someone who submitted their 1st draft NaNo novel calls themselves a writer or not, or calls themselves Lord Dictator of the Alphabet.

I will continue to write, and I will introduce myself as a writer when I feel it's appropriate. What others do in this regard, I don't care. To focus on them and/or get worked up about what they do is to take focus away from my own writing. Because arguing this is like arguing, "What is art?" OR "Who can call themselves an artist?"


----------



## acapes (Feb 24, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> To focus on them and/or get worked up about what they do is to take focus away from my own writing. Because arguing this is like arguing, "What is art?" OR "Who can call themselves an artist?"



Exactly, it's a meaningless argument with absolutely nothing at stake. It doesn't matter what anyone anywhere calls themselves. All that really matters is the act of writing. Everything else is fluff - sometimes fun, sometimes frustrating, but still fluff


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 24, 2015)

There really are some things at stake. For example, you cannot join certain professional associations unless you meet certain criteria. Yes, you, SFWA. The bar there is measured by paying publications, which only recently were expanded to include sales of e-books.

The fact that this argument keeps coming up is an indicator something is changing. We are trying to hash out what that means. For individuals, I agree with the tenor of the last few posts--just write and don't worry about labels. That's a rather different question than the question of exactly what "published" or "publication" means in this brave new world. The jury is, imo, still out on that one. And as long as that question isn't settled, the question of what "author" or "writer" means will likewise be muddy.

One of the many problems with the original article was that the author (that word again) talked as if the discussion were all done and dusted, and he knew the answers.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 25, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> There really are some things at stake. For example, you cannot join certain professional associations unless you meet certain criteria. Yes, you, SFWA. The bar there is measured by paying publications, which only recently were expanded to include sales of e-books.



SFWA Welcomes Self-Published and Small Press Authors! - SFWA


----------



## acapes (Feb 25, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> There really are some things at stake. For example, you cannot join certain professional associations unless you meet certain criteria. Yes, you, SFWA. The bar there is measured by paying publications, which only recently were expanded to include sales of e-books.
> 
> The fact that this argument keeps coming up is an indicator something is changing. We are trying to hash out what that means. For individuals, I agree with the tenor of the last few posts--just write and don't worry about labels. That's a rather different question than the question of exactly what "published" or "publication" means in this brave new world. The jury is, imo, still out on that one. And as long as that question isn't settled, the question of what "author" or "writer" means will likewise be muddy.
> 
> One of the many problems with the original article was that the author (that word again) talked as if the discussion were all done and dusted, and he knew the answers.



I'd agree with you if I thought orgs like SFWA had anything to offer, but I do agree 100% on what you said re: author's tone. He thought he'd finished the conversation, very much so.

I hesitate to suggest/consider this next word - as it's perhaps a little too open - but I think the word 'published' is possibly going to be overtaken by the word 'shared' when it comes to creative output. One day, maybe. Not sure what if any implication that will have on attitudes toward people who make art?


----------



## Russ (Feb 25, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> To acquire all these labels you bring up there is a specific and well defined process you have to go through. In writing, it isn't so clearly defined. You're comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> But as mentioned above, it really doesn't matter. That's something I've lost sight of while participating in this thread. It's not like a software developer calling themselves a software engineer, where the title Engineer carries with it a very specific meaning and set of skills.
> 
> ...



Actually I chose "Trial Lawyer" because while there is a clear definition of who is a lawyer, there is no clear definition of who is a trial lawyer. In fact there are many Trial Lawyer organizations that one can join, where the vast majority of members have never done a trial.  They are perfectly correct to refer to themselves as members of say "The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association"  but would be going too far to refer to themselves as a trial lawyer in conversation.  I thought the parallel was a pretty good one.

I agree it not a crucial question as to who should or should not refer to themselves as a writer, but it is an interesting one, and one that deals with manners, respect and decorum, which while these things may becoming less important they still have value. 

The author in the link I posted above, suggests a number of reasons one should be cautious and respectful in use of the term.  



> It is a discussion and distinction without clear lines, one that is marked by jealousy, condescension and pettiness. But I actually think it’s an important one nonetheless. One that when held properly doesn’t discourage anyone, but instead empowers them. It’s worth thinking about, wherever you happen to fall on the artist spectrum.
> 
> Here’s a reason for starters: the act of calling oneself a writer holds so many potentially great writers back. We’ve all seen them, writing for an imaginary audience, unable to improve because they’ve given themselves the laurels and credit before they did the learning. *Worse still, misuse of the term devalues the craft and the struggle of the people who have actually earned the right.*



His analysis goes on and is very good.

I always encourage people who want to write to write.  I don't think one should stop writing based on a discussion of the use of the term.  I do think we should be respectful of others and their accomplishments and consider just a little humility before we apply the label to ourselves.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Feb 25, 2015)

> _It’s worth thinking about, wherever you happen to fall on the *artist* spectrum._


I can't help but see the irony. This author is saying not to use the word "writer" unless [insert condition here] or you devalue the craft, but he has no problem saying pretty much anyone who creates is an "artist."


----------



## spectre (Feb 25, 2015)

Pin a junior G-man badge on him and let him go on about how the world can't write Agatha Christie if they want to unless someone is going to read it. Didn't appreciate it. Hey, at least he can make some cool laser beam schematics for his whatever he called it space opera. True enough.


----------

