I thought I'd ask in case anyone else experiences this periodic angst. How do I know I'm a real writer and not some schmuck pretending to be one? Who has the answer? In order to qualify as a "real" writer, does one need: - A dedicated following of readers - Published works - Proof of income for written work - Awards - Other writers crediting your work Or simply enjoying to write off grid is enough?
I think it depends on what your pretending to be . I believe most writer that try to succeed in achieving any of the things on your list will fail . At some point they stop , give up and do something else . I would say your a writer until you give it up.
The truth of the matter, as terrible as it is, is that the majority of written work doesn't really mean much to many people in the long run. The only thing that's required for being a "real" writer, to me, is just writing.
My own take: You're a writer if other people say you are. It doesn't matter how many. Whether you're a "professional writer" depends largely on the criteria the OP has given, but that's a different matter. I know a lot of good writers who aren't professional writers in that sense. I've sold writing for money and published a couple of books. When I stop doing that, do I cease to be a writer? Or is it a label that I'll always carry? Similarly, a person can be a "singer" if she sings, and other people like to listen to her sing. She's a "professional singer " if she makes money at it, builds a fan base, or wins a Grammy. But if I hear her singing and say, "Who's that singer?" then that makes her a singer.
A professional musical theatre director once told me - you're a singer when you consider yourself a singer.
Aww, I always recognise your drivel. Me, but unfortunately, like some cheap, annoying, comma-stricken Buddha, it's in the form of another question: Why the need to label your self? Why not just be and write?
IMO, when you get published and people like it. Others disagree, and that's fine, but I won't consider myself a real writer until I actually write something good.
Many authors publish things that are received poorly when they are first published. Someone gave the example of Moby Dick somewhere else on the forum. One of the worst books a friend of mind read was The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux. Heavy editing and the addition of music later, and it's an awesome musical.
Thank you so much for your contributions everyone! I'm not sure why I go through this angst from time to time, but it was great to read everyone's perspectives on this!
Dude, sammmmmme. I was just thinking this yesterday. I am hiding my writing from my partner (I do it at night, during our down time), and hoping that when I finish my first book, I can subtly slide it into their kindle under an alias. If they like it, success, if not, I'll just crumble and die.
But how can we be sure that anything is real? Depending on what branch of Solipsism you ascribe to, we can only ever be given the assurance that our consciousness is the only thing actually exists. For all we know, our very existence, our every experience could have been fed to us through the clever manipulation of electronic signals and for all we know, we may be nothing other than a brain in a jar. Or better yet, if we decide to give the Simulation Hypothesis any credence, the mathematical probability is low that we, or anything around us, is "real" and not just a virtual representation of reality. In such a world, what would it mean to be a Real Writer, and does it even matter?
Norman Boutin would be considered a writer. A bad writer perhaps, but nonetheless. If he can, you can.
I think she's defeated herself already. Never seen an author go so quickly from being loved by everybody, to hated by many of her fans.
I was reading some of the Descartes rationalism not so long ago, your response reminded me of that. Though, my question is less philosophical from that perspective and more of a I guess; do you need a certain talent / imagination, something you were maybe born with to be a good writer? Or is it something you learn / develop through practice / achievements and eventually become one? (like leveling up in a video game; amateur hobby writer > semi professional hobby writer > semi professional writer > professional writer etc.) And who is the final judge of good (or "real") writing? Is there some universal standard everyone should subscribe to?
Practice, practice, practice. The more you do it, the better you will be, until you reach a level that satisfies you. I will probably never be a Stephen King, but as long as I can craft a story I consider semi-decent, I'm happy to consider myself a writer.
Even surreal is real - just in some abstract and metadimensions. If it was not real, we would not recognise it as surreal way of pointing something that exists. Why this or that? You need talent, imagination, motivation and other traits which make it possible to learn, develop through practice and become one. And all that must fit to your genre(s) topic(s), style(s)... You need different talents and practices in different areas. In some areas - like political writing - good writing and/or thinking always threats some other people, ideologies and ambitions. Then you need good tools to keep your territory clean from hostile and/or parasitic influence and operators.
Delta-state theory. If you observe a state of matter or energy or a change in that state, it is real and you are real.
Market-driven guy that I am, I'll consider myself a real writer when someone pays money for something I've written.