"War on #amwriting" and a rebuttal

[skip.knox]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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]

>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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