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.
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.