So, just out of curiosity, going back to the Toole situation - where does he come out on the scale during his life? He worked for a lot of years on a novel. It won the Pulitzer Prize when it was published, but alas he was dead by that time. Seems a bit incongruous to say he was never a writer, but he never made a dime off his work during his life, so in terms of the "profession" part of it, you're much closer than Toole ever was. To me, saying Toole wasn't a writer seems insupportable, but if he was a writer then you're one too
To add to this, Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime. Does that mean he wasn't an artist/painter while he was alive and that he become one after his death?
Dickinson published only a little during her lifetime, as I recall. So was she not a poet while she was alive? It's just a bizarre conclusion to me. But, in my view, 'writer' doesn't imply any particular degree of commercial success, anymore than a painter has to achieve and specific degree of success. When you start talking about famous painters, professional painters, and the like, then you start getting into territory that requires a degree of success, notoriety, or what have you.
I agree with what was said further back. If you spend a significant amount of time working on your writing (or any other thing) to perfect it, whether you get paid for it or not, you're a writer. My grandfather is great with musical instruments. He plays bass guitar and piano. He's spent a lot of his life working on it and was even in a band for fun. He never got paid for it, but I still consider him a musician. On the same note, what about the numerous people who are dedicated cooks? They spend all their time learning recipes, creating new ones, etc. Even though they don't get paid for it, they still consider themselves chefs. So I agree it's bizarre to judge based on success or occupation. I consider myself a writer, because I work hard at it. I've been trying for years to get where I am now, and I'm proud of it. I've dedicated myself to it, and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying I'm a writer.
Yes, definitely. I used to go to an open blues night in St. Louis, and there were some incredible musicians who showed up to that, some who had been playing for half a century. They didn't get paid to make music, but saying they're not musicians would be wrong, in my view. They were not only musicians, they were very good ones.
That's assuming those people call themselves writers in the first place, which I certainly don't. Anyway, I still fail to see the point of bothering with the label or giving it so much energy when surely the writing is more important than being a 'writer'... or not. If people start giving you the label because they respect your work, sure, you can start using that label yourself. I didn't give myself my name, but I use it because that's how people know me and reference me. So if people know me as a writer, sure, I might use the label for their benefit. Until then, I'll just use my name and not worry so much about how other people perceive 'what' I am.
That's again my point. YOU respect their work so YOU call them musicians. That's what labels are for and it's perfectly valid. But a guy or girl who loves playing the saxophone but can't hold a tune and makes sounds like a blind cat in a bathtub is no musician in my book, and they should have enough respect for music not to call themselves one.
I'm possibly at a bit of a low point in the Imposter Syndrome of my life - I've got an Ask Me Anything event set up tomorrow on Reddit/books (publisher's publicity people set it up, I'd never heard of it) and as I'm preparing for it I'm looking at previous guests - Dan Brown, Khaled Hosseini, John Green, Margaret Fucking ATWOOD... last week Charlaine Harris, tomorrow Paulo Bacigalupi. And then, mixed in the middle of it all... me. So, yeah, I'm feeling a bit insignificant. I write. But those guys? Those guys are writers.
Impostor Syndrome can be a great tool to help push your abilities to the limits; i never would have made it as line leader in the 3rd grade without it. Be careful though, it can also make you want curl up in a corner with a juice box and the pet hamster.
I'd be willing to lay a bet you're a better writer than Dan Brown Margaret Atwood....yes, I can see where that would be intimidating!
Although I consider myself a writer, I don't believe I've actually ever told anyone that I'm a writer. Most people don't even know I write unless I ask them to beta read for me. Then, inevitably, "I didn't know you were a writer." You are a writer if that is where your heart lies.
An amateur anything CAN be very good, and a professional anything can still be quite bad, but there needs to be a distinction between amateur and professional. That's how we communicate. On that note, if someone says, hey, what do you do, and they really mean, what do you do for a living, it would be dishonest to say you're a whatever, if you aren't making a living off of that. @peachalulu and you have some great points, and I agree, that if what you are about, is writing, and you stay up all night writing, and it's your biggest dream, that definitely counts for something. In fact, a person whose passion and dream is to be a writer-yet they just suck- that's kind of romantic (although I wouldn't want to be that person). But back to communication. When you say you're a writer, and your mom says she's a writer, and hey, the neighbor's refrigerator repairman's thirteen year old daughter is also a writer, being a "writer" quickly loses it's meaning. This is particularly problematic because history has often depicted writers as being very distinguished. At least in U.S, I'd say that in k-12, we learn about more famous writers than famous people from any other type of profession, save the President of the US. Maybe in better schools it's tied with scientists, but certainly always more than pro athletes, musicians, and actors.* So, ultimately, if someone asks you what you do, and you puff up your chest, and say, "I AM A WRITER," and you're not actually published, you better pray they don't ask you, "what have you published," because there's a good chance you're going to wind up looking like an asshole. *Off the top of my head, from my high school and middle school, I can remember Edison (if we want to count him as a scientist), Faraday, Einstein, both Curies, maybe Watson and Crick, Bohr, Newton, Leibniz (Mathematician), Galileo, Kepler, Darwin, and MAYBE Maxwell. On the writing side, we have Hemingway, Twain, Dickens, Wilde, Vonnegut, Orwell, James Joyce, John Steinbeck, Shakespeare, Wolfe, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Scott Fitzgerald, Ray Bradbury, Susan Sontag (UGH), Kafka, Dickens, Conrad, Harper Lee, Dante, plus a shit load of philosophers who are also writers, like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, De sade, Nietzsche, and I'm just going to stop now. In fact, we might learn about more writers than U.S Presidents... So yeah, no wonder when you call yourself a writer, and you're unpublished, people are going to roll their eyes at you.
To me the different between amateur and professional is 'writer' vs 'author' - though I'm not really sure why I have that association, and 'author' is still a subset of 'writer', so ehn. When I was a kid I always said "I'm gonna be a writer" - I'm not entirely sure when I switched to "well I guess I'm a writer now?" but it didn't become "and now I've reached my final form: AUTHOR" when I got published. Returning to qualifiers as someone (Steerpike I think) brought up, I do call myself a freelance writer, but not a professional writer. Does that make me an author or no? I probably wouldn't call myself an amateur writer (though lord knows some of my writing still comes out amateurish, hahah) but that's mostly because I've been writing for something like fifteen years and I have to believe I'm at least a writer adept, by now. It's not because of the publishing thing; it's not because I'm able to make money off it. It's more a judgment of how my own skill has noticeably improved since I started. @BayView brought up impostor syndrome and that's something I struggle with a lot myself. Literally about two/three hours after I got the email back that my first short had been accepted, I was going "oh wow I'm not good enough for this, I'm not a real writer, what the shit, this has got to be joke". Nothing has changed since then no matter what I've accomplished. I still routinely have the voice in the back of my head that goes "dude you're not a writer what are you thinking" and insisting that I am a writer is how I deal with that massive insecurity and get myself to keep writing. Qualifiers aside, I firmly believe that anyone who's writing is a writer. Doesn't mean they're a good writer (yet), doesn't mean they're a professional or published writer, but they are a type of writer. If they don't want to call themselves such, cool, but that's how I classify it in my head. Writer first, applicable qualifiers second.
I'm used to calling myself a writer because it's actually in my job title. But I called myself a 'novelist' for the first time a few weeks ago... I felt pretentious and underhand and I was glad they didn't ask any questions about publishing. So I guess I won't be comfortable calling myself a novelist until I'm published.
I really hope 'Fucking' genuinely is Maggie's middle name. I can imagine her parents looking at her as a babe and thinking "yeah, this one's going to be a good one."
But isn't that kinda cool? Somewhere along the spectrum of professional writers, you're on it! All right perhaps Atwood is at one end and you might be on the other, but same spectrum nonetheless. You should be proud of yourself! I find it cute that it feels like people here are trying to convince you you're a writer. Feeling a little humbled can be a good thing, but that doesn't make you not something just because there are famous people included. Anyway, if any of us on this forum can call ourselves writers, you certainly can. Most of us (like myself) are still only dreaming of getting published, let alone make a dime off it... You're way ahead.
You're a novelist/writer/author - whatever, your books are cool and you got an agent. These labels don't even matter when you've got that! I think for myself, next up it's the title Author I want. I don't think I'd call myself that until I get published. I mean traditionally. I know I self-published a book already and I'm proud of it, but for me the bar is definitely with getting traditionally published. Somehow being recognised by the gatekeepers, so to speak, and seeing a copy of my book, with my name, on the shelves in an actual book store - that to me is the dream. I don't even care if I'm not a bestseller Writer - you just write, I think. But Author - now for that you got to have a book. Ah it sounds so good... *flies off to Lala Land*
Everything loses it's meaning when we expect a label to do anything more than establish one fact. Calling yourself a writer shouldn't include - published, successful, a profession, earning a living, recognized, established, a fiction writer, a journalist. It should merely mean - you write. I know I'm not going to change anything, and believe me I have my own prejudices about what qualifies that title, but it's something that always bothers me about the whole artistic community - actors, musicians, dancers, artists. They all have to defend their titles. Maybe it's just the way people communicate altogether about goals vs professions that annoys me. If you're established - than you've earned the title, even if you're in limbo ( like college or a specialty school ) you're given credit like a pregnant woman - you will be established. But anything else. Automatic amateur hour. Like there is no other process except for conventional routes, conventional recognition. Which eliminates millions if not billions of people. I don't think there is any way of not looking like an a-hole when it comes to calling yourself a writer or saying you write. Even if you establish it's not how you make your living or you've had two shorts published or nothing - yet. Because no goal you meet will ever be as satisfactory to people as high sales or established publishing houses or awards. Even then you could say, I sold two thousand copies of my erotica novella about a man who falls in love with a banana and you've lost all credibility. Saying you're a writer is more for your own benefit than anyone else. But I understand people's hesitation to do so.
Maybe this all depends on what question we're imaging someone asking us in order to elicit the response. Like, if someone asks "What do you do?" they mean for a living. If someone asks "Do you have any hobbies?" they're asking something different. So I wouldn't say "I'm a writer" in response to the first question but I conceivably might in response to the second. (I still wouldn't, actually, but I can see how someone would.)
I read a blog post a while back by a young woman who claimed she 'wanted to be a writer'. She went on to say that "All my friends say they can so see me dressed all in black, walking down the street in New York City with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other." That was what 'being a writer' meant to her, and that became the difference to me between writing and being a writer. I haven't heard of her since, so we can probably assume the literary world was spared the banality of her ambition.
Idea #3 You know that feeling when you woke up on your 16th birthday? You didn't suddenly feel 16, there wasn't any sudden biological or physiological change (except for me, i woke up with a full beard somehow) That's what's being a writer is. You know you're a writer, everyone close to you knows it too. The title fits, but its not comfortable yet, its an itchy and stiff shirt but eventually it'll be the one you wear as pajamas.
I have to go with the dictionary on this one. writer noun 1. a person engaged in writing books, articles, stories, etc., especially as an occupation or profession; an author or journalist. 2. a clerk, scribe, or the like. 3. a person who commits his or her thoughts, ideas, etc., to writing : an expert letter writer. So "writer" is a broad term referring to people who write with a purpose regardless of profession or success. Of course, if you aren't comfortable calling yourself a writer, I respect that so long as you don't try to force everyone else to follow suite. Que sera, sera and all. Personally, I refer to myself as "hobbyist writer" just to make the distinction that I don't make money off this because, as someone previously stated, "writer" often times makes folks imagine you sat behind a typewriter with a cigarette resting on the rim of an ashtray furiously typing while simultaneously ignoring calls from your tortured editor who is desperately trying to figure out if your newest novel will be done in time. I have a day job bros. I don't want to gave anyone a false impression.
I relate to that a lot. It was about a year until I told anyone except my two best friends that I was writing. I was embarrassed. Six months on, I'm giving the book to anyone who wants it, including colleagues, and not caring if they like it or not. I think over time I'll be happy to say "I'm a writer", especially if I have any commercial success at it.
