There are so many crappy published books for sale but amazing e-books (no publishing company) and amazing fanfiction. I hate the elitists that insists that in order to be a "real" writer, you must be published. Well, what' a real writer anyway? It's all subjective. Writers are people who write. To me, it will always be that simple.
Not being a 'true writer' until publication is such an idiotic notion. Sorry, but it really is. What does that even mean--true writer? There are so many avenues for publication that it is inevitable for the aspiring writer, given time and effort. So it is not such a lofty benchmark, and certainly not something one should base his/her identity on. You write, you're a writer. No stupid romanticizations, no false modesty.
Big ups for this comment! If you're writing for status, you are barking up the wrong tree. To quote Jack Warner (head of Warner Brothers): "What is a writer but a schmuck with an Underwood?" If status is what you need, writing ain't the place to find it.
Whenever one writes, one is a writer. Now, whether you are a professional or an amatuer writer, that would hinge on the publishing question, among others, like: Are you paid for your writing? I'd imagine claiming to be an Author would be harder than claiming the title of writer.... But you either do it or you don't
Why? Once you've written something (writer) you're the author of it (author). Trying to imply a qualitative difference is just another pretension.
I guess, to answer, I'm saying the title of author brings with it that suggestive pretension. Writer just sounds more... informal. And it is easier to call yourself one. Especially if you are unpublished.
If you write, then you're a writer. I have an avid passion and interest in writing fiction, I write reguarly, I've written for a long time and I have an aspiration to become published, so why wouldn't I call myself a writer? It's not my job, but it's what I do. I started becoming serious about my writing when I allowed myself to call myself a writer. Giving myself that title has only improved my chances of becoming an author.
I agree with you. I'd always thought an author was a published writer but what shadow walker said is also true.
I've considered myself a writer since the age of 12. It's something I feel I am naturally. You can also be more than one thing at once. I have several skills, being a writer is just one of them.
If you devote time to writing then I believe you are a writer, regardless of whether or not you are published. If you do get published, you can call yourself a published writer. But if it's something you do, your passion, then you have the rights to label yourself as a writer.
You are a writer if you write because writers write. For every published writer there are a gazillion unpublished writers which makes them writers waiting to be published. The only way, and I mean the ONLY way that you will ever have a chance to become published, is if you write and continue to write and ONLY of you FINISH that poem, short story or novel and submit it.
You can call yourself whatever you want. There are no title police. Unless you try to call yourself something that actually violates a law (calling yourself "Dr. XXX, M.D." when you don't have a medical license etc), it doesn't really matter. Call yourself a chef d'papier. You can be a wordsmith. You can print up some business cards calling yourself a "Dark Lord of the Script." If you want to be a "hobby writer" then go for it.
True. But, I can call myself a "wild swimmer" and will join many other people who use the same title. And they'll know what I mean even though otherwise the words "wild" and "swimmer" together are ambiguous and could describe someone down the local pool who is very angry. If I call myself a "river aquanaut", then this is not (as far as I'm aware) a widely used term, and doesn't benefit from easy understanding due to common use.
