What defines a 'writer'? (MERGED)

Do you think a writer is defined by his profession, or by his skill of writing? Are you a writer regardless of whether you've had work published or not, or do you actually need to be getting paid for your work before you can actually call yourself one?

Does saying you're a writer actually mean you're a writer, as does saying you're a musician mean you're a musician? Shouldn't a writer be able to write various styles, as does a musician play various styles?

I don't know. What do you think?

 

Good question. I like to doodle when bored, doesn't make me an artist. There's a few very talented people in my school though, who, although never paid, I would definitely call artists. Getting published/paid, I think, means you can be totally comfortable calling yourself a writer(and others will call you it too, whether you want them to or not), but then again, I'm sure Stephen King was a "writer" before ever getting first paid.

 

I think the terms are self grandisements when used by the person themselves. People will tell you if you are an artist or a musician. Like this guy who used to hang out with us at a music studios, thought of himself as an artist but a few people said his techno music sounded like a bloke building a shed, he could never get why he didnt get ahead in music but still told everyone he was a artist musician - I know a few people who really are writers and get paid for it, they dont call themselves writers but do say they earn a living from writing.
Other people say "oh he's a writer", but they say "I just write for a living"

 

But isn't a person's definition of artist different to the next? What makes someone elses opinion more valid than your own?

If you think a piece of work you've done is art, who is anyone else to say otherwise?

 

You have a point. Like for example, a person doodles on a post-it and claims to be an artist. However most would view this person as a bored flake with a rich spouse. Who's to say who's correct? Can one be as passionate about post-it art as say Picasso or Monet? Perhaps the test is whether they would continue to do it if they weren't enabled by too much free time? The term "starving artist" is not given to one paid for their art but one that suffers to create art despite the need for survival. If one writes simply because they must, because a drive or impulse compels them to write, they are a writer despite any other flimsy definition. One can be a bad writer and one can be an unemployed writer but if they continue to do it to fulfill an inner desire then they simply are, no question.

 

In order to understand what makes an artist it might be wise to first examine what motivates the artist.

Is it love, or money? Is it a need of expression? Is it loneliness? Is it inhibited or suppressed feelings? Is it political statement?

It gets a bit complicated, doesn't it?

If we were to say that the majority of the people in this part of the forums are "amateurs" then we might be better off understanding how that word relates to the aspiring artist.

Since, as writers, we enjoy dabbling in a bit of wordplay, it may be interesting to learn that the word "amateur" is derived from the word "amour", or more commonly, "love".

It may also be of interest to know that the ancient Greek word for amateur is "erositechnis" derived from the words Eros (God of love) and Technitis (artisan/craftsman).

Therefore, bear in mind how you yourself feel about your own writing to appreciate which end of the scale you are on. Be ambitious, but also be realistic. Survival comes first, so get a job where you can support yourselves, but never forget your art, if you truly love it.

Don't forget that the inimitable H.P. Lovecraft, the motivation behind Stephen King (as he himself will tell you if he, *cough*, sees this post), considered himself an "amateur", i.e. someone who created his art, because he loved what he did. It wasn't until well after his death that his friends managed to publish the wonderful stories he penned.

Lovecraft had his audience, the people who loved to read his work while he was alive. You yourselves should be each other's greatest audience, and if you see this forum for the great opportunity it has in getting people to work together, and positively encourage each other to do better(and to also offer critique on each other work), then pretty soon you will surprise yourselves even. Do not neglect critique as a writer, because that is the greatest way to become critical about your own work, and eventually improve!!!

And the best thing is when you become good at it, you can pass it on, and help future generations become more literate.

 

The reason I say others will tell you is simply that "artist" is a word which confers status similar but not very similar to the word "plumber", someone who does the odd bit of diy and manages to replace a radiator can hardly call themselves a plumber. Someone who doodles on a postit note but hasnt had anything like an education in art cannot really call themselves an artist. The term artist is a term of cultural status. Just as a personal preference I like it if people say I am an artist but I would find it embarrassing to tell people I am as that is just too self important isnt it?

guy who is making music:
I am an artist, oh come come, listen to my wonderful wonderful music how could any of you fail to see how most magnificently great that is - oh how can women keep their hands off me I am so great surely I am not just an artist but a great artist ? well at least an artist dont you think

Friend:
(thinks its a pile of crap but says ) oh yes certainly you are indeed magnificent and it is surely on the scale of Mozart oh no better - mozart would envy you

then turns to other friend - he has delusions of grandeur - the ass thinks himself an artist bwaaaaahahahahaha

also there is always the opportunity for people to say oh yes you are an artist but a particularly bad one ! hahaha
No I think I prefer it if people told me the truth by not pandering to my ego. I would prefer the quiet approach and let others confer that status on me

 

I have always viewed a writer as someone who writes because they enjoy it and can creat somthing unique and enjoyable. However it does go beyond that is a way that cannot always be described but is know when you see it. A term paper dose not make you a writer. Your shopping list? Nope, still not a writer. Basic mundane things do not make you a writer. You rise above the normal shit everyone writes and write other things that many wish they could (or could get around to) write.

 

A writer must chain smoke cigarettes.

If one does not chain smoke cigarettes then one is not and can never be a writer.

 

One who writes.

 

I think good writers should know exactly how to spell, and be able to punctuate their work properly. It is not simply one who writes, but one who writes well.

Oscar Wilde said "When everyone can write, there will be nothing worth reading"

Given the state of the internet I believe he was correct.

 

I recently decided to move far away from home to be near a University so I can take advantage of its creative writing workshops and it got me thinking. Many writers have not gone through any formalized college training and they get published on raw talent while many college educated writers end up teaching. Is writing someone people are born with or can it be fostered through teaching? If people are just born with it, what's with the schools? Is it a talent or a skill?

 

Both. No poll option for that, so I didnt vote.

 

To everyone:

If you want to know if you're a writer or not then all you have to do is let me read the first paragraph of your best story and I'll tell you.

But if you want to save some time, the answer is: 'NO'.

 

I'd say, storytelling is a talent and writing is a skill. On rare occasion does a person have both without any need of cultivation.

'Don't quit your day job' - Uneducated or degrees up the wazoo, this motto stands for all writers. Now you get your college guys teaching 'cause it's a day job related to writing and lit. and a pension to boot. I don't know a single teacher/writer that stops writing ot stopd trying to get published (if they aren't already published).

My husband's a writer and he teaches (Though teaching was always his choice of career) and there's a few of them that do writers groups and such. One of my other friends is a writer and went to uni specifically for create writing. He's incredibly good but he was slinging coffee until he landed a small magazine job. Two months from that and he was hired as a speech writer - only took him until he was 30.

If think you also need to consider the era of the uneducated, well published, author as also when you're looking at comparisons. Then also look at how many people aren't getting published, formal training or otherwise - there's a planet full of us.

 

whats the difference?

 

I am one of the greatest writers who have ever lived and nothing I have written has ever been published. I have only ever written my name and posted a few things here but that makes me a writer much as in the same way someone who drives a car down to the end of the street is a grand prix champion

 

That's the same with any arts qualification, to be honest. It's possible to pass them without having any passion or spark for writing, just as it's possible to have that and not pass them.

I think the talent is important, but the skill to harness and use that talent rather than squander it is a lot more important in a lot of ways. There's plenty of very talented musicians, writers and artists who never apply themselves or lack the drive to make their work known or to get it published, while plenty of other, arguably less talented artists know how to harness what talents they have to get themselves noticed.

 

talents are not instincts some humans are magicly born with, but rather a kind of intrinsic intrest and inclination of the soul that thus gratifies the individual to practice, and thus gratified practices, and by practicing and having practiced, like anything else that is, GETS good at. other then this practicing, that this intrinsic gratification inspires, the entire concept of "talent", becomes a somewhat meaningless myth.

however good at something your infancy may have inclined you to become, without the development of practice, it pretty much generally don't happen.

and that includes a LOT of self editing and self critiquing as well.
(and the balance between that, and the neccessary avoidance of excessively second guessing oneself, isn't handed to anyone on a silver platter either)

=^^=
.../\...

 

a writer is someone who writes. a published writer is one who has been published.

the quality of ANY art, is entirely in the eye of the beholder. some of these beholders are editors. many if not most editors, got to be by being very good writers. not all of course. and what they select for may not be 'artistic value' but what their publishers feel they in turn, can profitably sell.

the winnowing effect of market economics does have the very negative effect sometimes, perhaps often, of impeading, diversity.

i'm not so sure there is such a thing as great writers or other artists, but there are great stories and other works many of them have created. and i don't always think art and litterary critics are the best judges i what i find personally gratifying to me.

freequently i find a considerable shortage there of, and i blame largely markets and art criticism, the built in cultural biases of each, for this being the case.

i know the're "just tryin' 'a keep the customer satisfied", but i AM the customer, and i'm NOT that often satisfied. though i must of course confess, even boast on occasion, of not be all so typical of a one.

i do not bemoan my differences with the perspectives of the cultural mainstream, but do, not out of any superiority, but perhapse out of a certain willingness to look more objectively, ITS differences, with my own.

=^^=
.../\...