"War on #amwriting" and a rebuttal

[Mythopoet]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.