Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Candy
By the measures you are using I can consider myself a writer and have been since the age of 15. However, the question of qualification is a red herring. I had never studied to be a writer until recently, most 'successful' writers have not studied any more specifically to write than they have to become a vet.
My point is that being a writer is NOT solely about pubication. Many people are excellent writers yet fail to find the right agent or publisher. Much work published for free on the internet is read and appreciated by more people than ever buy a book. A precise definition is impossible. On a site which is as much about encouraging those at the start of their writing career, as it is about celebrating the successes of the more established writers, the courage to call oneself a writer is often an important step to being prepared to put your work our for publication.
A 'successful' writer is an altogether different matter. Once again it is almost impossible to come up with a precise definition for. It might be winning the Booker prize to one person and earning royalties of £2000 to another. It might even be receiving a single email from a 'fan' of your work.
I have probably said far too much, but I guess I felt quite strongly about it.
Mutley, this is an open forum for discussion and this topic invariably brings out strong feelings. Don't worry about how much you write, it is good for all of us to see all viewpoints on this. I am a writer. I have been for the best part of 30 years. The publishing record proves it. I get as pleased and happy over a non paying commission as a paying one, because it is all publicity in the first place and people reading my work in the second place. I've just contributed 2 articles to an online spiritualist site. (I won't get paid but the person who runs the site had a reading which they paid for, so that is good enough for me.) I will be thrilled when I sell a book (again) as I am every time a book comes out.
The truth is somewhere in the middle, it is how we perceive ourselves. Are we writers, scribblers (as one of my men said recently!) scribes, artists, photographers, creators of something, in our hearts, minds and souls? Unless we carry that belief, we won't make it, for outside of acting, it has to be one of the most disappointing professions to be in, with constant rejections to bring us down. Stay strong, decide who you are, what you are, what you want to be, and stay loyal to that image. And, more than anything, (I say this from an advanced old age now which makes me see things a little differently than I used to)
Do that which pleases you. In this lifetime the days are not that many. Make the most of each one and fill them with things which give you pleasure. If writing is one of them, go write.
One of the problems here, I think, is the word 'writer' itself. As amply demonstrated on this thread there are many different interpretations of the word. The kind of professional interpretation suggested by candy's contribution might better be described using the words 'novelist', 'author', 'scientific writer', 'historian', 'published writer' or even, as Mutley says, 'successful writer' - all of which have a sort of professional, mainstream published ring to them.
What, however, were any of these worthies doing before they were published? Writing presumably, so were they not writers then? They wrote ergo they were writers - but not in the way Candy interprets the word. As I say, it's the word itself that produces much of the hysteria.
Neil is absolutely correct - a writer is someone who writes, just as a golfer is someone who plays golf.
There may be a dividing line between a published and non-published writer, just as there is a difference between an amateur and a professional golfer - but all levels can legitimately describe themselves as writers and golfers.
If you want to be recognised as a published writer then you can identify yourself as such but it doesn't give any of us the right to declare that a non-published writer is not a writer.
Despite being a published writer I still call myself a nurse!
Thanks for those kind thoughts Neil and CelticC.
I would never describe myself as a writer because I havent had anything published yet.
It's a bit of a contradiction I know but to be told I'm not a writer is a bit depressing.
I don't always have long to spare on it but I always write something everyday.
I write very little as my time available is little. I've had my successes, seen my words in print, had my share of rejections.
In reply to Candy's analogy I am also a musician. I have been playing drums in a bands since the 60s and I still do. But who am I? I'm certainly not Buddy Rich, Gene Kruper or Ginger Baker. They would all laugh at my level of talent. But I have never been out of work as a musician for over 40 years. No qualifications, no diplomas, no formal training. Just a desire to play my music with like minded musicians, sing my part of the harmony and enjoy the applause of the crowd. I'm good at what I do at the level of which I'm doing it.
Yes. I call myself a musician. I call myself a writer. And anybody who reads my writing, including this addition to the debate, should agree with me. Because, when I read what you have written for others to read then you, too, are writers. All of you. And I take great pleasure in being part, albeit a small part, of an entertaining profession.
Just because someone self published as well does not mean that there is no market for their work. Editors are only human after all and can and do make mistakes - even JK Rowling got rejections ! I think I have more than proved that there is a market for my work anyway, as it is stocked in almost a third of Waterstones stores (and selling well) - most commercially published books don't manage that let alone self published ones.
As others have said though, it is not about sales figures or markets or anything like that, but a much more personal thing. For me it is really quite simple - I write and therefore I am!
"Websites and magazines that take work without paying? Well, those are desperate for any material they can get, so therefore getting into one of those doesn't necessarily make you a 'writer', either."
Well, by that token 99% of poets are not writers, because the literary presses do not pay if they publish your work. That doesn't stop the competition to get into them being fierce - they are hardly "desperate" for material, in fact most of them have a couple of years' worth of backlog! They're also pretty prestigious for poets, if you can get your work accepted by one of these publications.
And as for the crack about self-publishers: the poet and performer Les Barker has been self-publishing his work for years. He's produced about 40 collections and they sell in droves at his gigs and through the website. He's the only poet I can think of (the Great McGough only excepted) who can be pretty much guaranteed to sell out every venue he performs. Yet, by Candy's yardstick, he's not a proper writer.
I have to admit, I am one of those people who believe that you are a writer if you cannot stop writing. I have tried not having the time to write for a couple of year of my life, and I got really depressed. I couldn't figure out why until someone asked me: what is missing from your life? And it was writing. As soon as I started writing again, it was like a boost of energy.
So I believe it has nothing to do with being published or not. If you are a writer at heart, then your are a writer!
on that thought, Les Barker selling his collections at gigs, the medium Stephen O'Brien self publishes and sells out at his performances. They are very well written, actually. I am not a fan of his but bought one of his books when he came to the island - OK, tell you why.
A few weeks before he came, a medium told me that all the answers I sought were to be found on page 132 of a particular Stephen O'Brien book. As soon as the interval came in the evening, I rushed off to buy the book, got back to my seat and eagerly opened it. Stephen O'Brien uses the technique of starting a new chapter on the right hand page, regardless of where the last chapter ended. So, page 132 was blank ... message, find your own answers!
Dorothy, I would have been disappointed to find a blank page. I know we are supposed to make our own decisions - usually - but if we really need a guiding hand (or frase), a blank page is a little cruel, isn't it?
No, I fell about laughing. I did suspect that my answers would not be found on a single page in a book by a medium I had never seen before. Basically it meant go back to your own guides and ask, which I do, all the time. I have some pretty powerful people around me.
Reminds me of the book I bought OH a few years ago - "What Men Know And Understand About Women" - it was a blank notebook! (There was a male equivalent as well)
You're right, Amboline, most of the poetry written today is just bad prose cut into short lines. I wouldn't say that anyone who writes that sort of stuff is a writer! A lot of folks write poetry just because they think it's easy.
I once thought I'd try automatic writing. I rested a pencil between my thumb and forefinger so that I didn't have any control over it. I closed my eyes and let my hand move sideways.
When I looked at the result it said - in very scrawly writing but understandable - "Open your eyes".
I told my mum and she was none too happy about my experiment!
Candy: I think you're missing my point. I wasn't saying that 99% of poetry is bad - I think that's a different discussion entirely (e.g. the two "State of British Poetry" threads in the Poetry section).
I was saying that *according to your analysis*, which bases credibility as a writer on the ability to attract payment for work published, there are virtually no poets who count as credible writers. The reason for this is that the literary presses do not pay for publication. They run on a shoestring budget with no subsidy - they simply can't afford to pay contributors in anything more than complimentary copies. That doesn't stop some of these publications being amongst the UK's most respected literary journals, inclusion in which is a sure indication that you are a writer who commands critical respect and displays mastery of your craft.
Poets (Heaney, McGough and Duffy possibly excepted) do not make money from the poetry they publish. Most professional poets make their money from teaching engagements, judging competitions, appearances at literary festivals etc. - or they take Les Barker's route and spend their whole lives on tour, like many musicians do. Many more of the most critically respected UK poets (and those of us who'd quite like to make it someday) have day jobs. Does this mean that we are not real writers? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Yes I would call myself a writer, although these days I call myself a "Technical writer" as it doesn't cause so much mocking, which I am very sensitive too.... sadly... Of course then I can go onto say "oh and I've had a play produced...." but as I haven't had a fiction book published I can see by the light of the eyes I talk too that I am not, in their view, a writer...
It's an impossible mountain to climb and I have long since given up talking about my writing to people. To me now, the most important part is to carry on writing and simply live and breath what I enjoy doing.
I agree with the concept that if you write, you're a writer - even if you've never had anything published, I don't think it'd be wrong to describe yourself as a writer. How we feel about what we do is a different matter - some people think of themselves as writers and some don't and this doesn't seem to relate to the amount published or money earned.
I am a writer - not a professional one and that's not all I am, but I'm definitely a writer.
I've had a couple of poems published when I was younger, and I'm working on my book series/trilogy now. If anyone asks me what I do, I say that my day job is working in a callcentre, but really I'm a writer, and the minute I get published (hopefully with enough money to live off for a year), I'll be leaving my day job to write full-time. Here's to wishing and hoping, eh?
It's funny though, because this thread has just reminded me of something a friend said a while ago. I was meeting the girls for a drink one saturday afternoon, on the way to a girlie night in at another friend's house. They got to town before me, and had stopped to get a thankyou card and present for her.
When I arrived, the first thing my friend, Vanessa, said to me was, "Hey, Vic, have you got a pen?"
I always have a pen and a notepad with me, so fished a biro out of my bag and handed it to her straight away.
She then turned to our other friends and said, "See, I said Vicky would have a pen on her. Writers always do."
I don't think I've ever been more moved by a throwaway comment than I was by that one.
that kind of throwaway comment does definitely mean more than a considered one, SA, and worthy of storing in your memory bank, for sure.
I am definitely a writer. I went for some time being unpublished but that makes no less a writer than I was before and am now. We write. We aim for publication. We aim for acceptance.
interesting thread.
I call my self a writer but an aspiring author. I will only be an author when i am publishd but for the moment i am just a writer.
I think a writer is someone who makes people want to read what he/she has written. My sister just said to me that my previous draft made her want to continue reading... my style of writing lends itself to someone wanting to continue to read it. Which is a huge compliment for me... coz i don't read a book unless it catches my attention in the first chapter. anyway that's off topic. sorry
I do like jemma's distinction between writer and author. It's similar to the difference between am - dram and professional theatre. They are all actors, as we are all writers, but the pros are paid, so are the published authors
Comments
By the measures you are using I can consider myself a writer and have been since the age of 15. However, the question of qualification is a red herring. I had never studied to be a writer until recently, most 'successful' writers have not studied any more specifically to write than they have to become a vet.
My point is that being a writer is NOT solely about pubication. Many people are excellent writers yet fail to find the right agent or publisher. Much work published for free on the internet is read and appreciated by more people than ever buy a book. A precise definition is impossible. On a site which is as much about encouraging those at the start of their writing career, as it is about celebrating the successes of the more established writers, the courage to call oneself a writer is often an important step to being prepared to put your work our for publication.
A 'successful' writer is an altogether different matter. Once again it is almost impossible to come up with a precise definition for. It might be winning the Booker prize to one person and earning royalties of £2000 to another. It might even be receiving a single email from a 'fan' of your work.
I have probably said far too much, but I guess I felt quite strongly about it.
The truth is somewhere in the middle, it is how we perceive ourselves. Are we writers, scribblers (as one of my men said recently!) scribes, artists, photographers, creators of something, in our hearts, minds and souls? Unless we carry that belief, we won't make it, for outside of acting, it has to be one of the most disappointing professions to be in, with constant rejections to bring us down. Stay strong, decide who you are, what you are, what you want to be, and stay loyal to that image. And, more than anything, (I say this from an advanced old age now which makes me see things a little differently than I used to)
Do that which pleases you. In this lifetime the days are not that many. Make the most of each one and fill them with things which give you pleasure. If writing is one of them, go write.
What, however, were any of these worthies doing before they were published? Writing presumably, so were they not writers then? They wrote ergo they were writers - but not in the way Candy interprets the word. As I say, it's the word itself that produces much of the hysteria.
There may be a dividing line between a published and non-published writer, just as there is a difference between an amateur and a professional golfer - but all levels can legitimately describe themselves as writers and golfers.
If you want to be recognised as a published writer then you can identify yourself as such but it doesn't give any of us the right to declare that a non-published writer is not a writer.
Despite being a published writer I still call myself a nurse!
I would never describe myself as a writer because I havent had anything published yet.
It's a bit of a contradiction I know but to be told I'm not a writer is a bit depressing.
I don't always have long to spare on it but I always write something everyday.
In reply to Candy's analogy I am also a musician. I have been playing drums in a bands since the 60s and I still do. But who am I? I'm certainly not Buddy Rich, Gene Kruper or Ginger Baker. They would all laugh at my level of talent. But I have never been out of work as a musician for over 40 years. No qualifications, no diplomas, no formal training. Just a desire to play my music with like minded musicians, sing my part of the harmony and enjoy the applause of the crowd. I'm good at what I do at the level of which I'm doing it.
Yes. I call myself a musician. I call myself a writer. And anybody who reads my writing, including this addition to the debate, should agree with me. Because, when I read what you have written for others to read then you, too, are writers. All of you. And I take great pleasure in being part, albeit a small part, of an entertaining profession.
As others have said though, it is not about sales figures or markets or anything like that, but a much more personal thing. For me it is really quite simple - I write and therefore I am!
"Websites and magazines that take work without paying? Well, those are desperate for any material they can get, so therefore getting into one of those doesn't necessarily make you a 'writer', either."
Well, by that token 99% of poets are not writers, because the literary presses do not pay if they publish your work. That doesn't stop the competition to get into them being fierce - they are hardly "desperate" for material, in fact most of them have a couple of years' worth of backlog! They're also pretty prestigious for poets, if you can get your work accepted by one of these publications.
And as for the crack about self-publishers: the poet and performer Les Barker has been self-publishing his work for years. He's produced about 40 collections and they sell in droves at his gigs and through the website. He's the only poet I can think of (the Great McGough only excepted) who can be pretty much guaranteed to sell out every venue he performs. Yet, by Candy's yardstick, he's not a proper writer.
So I believe it has nothing to do with being published or not. If you are a writer at heart, then your are a writer!
A few weeks before he came, a medium told me that all the answers I sought were to be found on page 132 of a particular Stephen O'Brien book. As soon as the interval came in the evening, I rushed off to buy the book, got back to my seat and eagerly opened it. Stephen O'Brien uses the technique of starting a new chapter on the right hand page, regardless of where the last chapter ended. So, page 132 was blank ... message, find your own answers!
When I looked at the result it said - in very scrawly writing but understandable - "Open your eyes".
I told my mum and she was none too happy about my experiment!
I was saying that *according to your analysis*, which bases credibility as a writer on the ability to attract payment for work published, there are virtually no poets who count as credible writers. The reason for this is that the literary presses do not pay for publication. They run on a shoestring budget with no subsidy - they simply can't afford to pay contributors in anything more than complimentary copies. That doesn't stop some of these publications being amongst the UK's most respected literary journals, inclusion in which is a sure indication that you are a writer who commands critical respect and displays mastery of your craft.
Poets (Heaney, McGough and Duffy possibly excepted) do not make money from the poetry they publish. Most professional poets make their money from teaching engagements, judging competitions, appearances at literary festivals etc. - or they take Les Barker's route and spend their whole lives on tour, like many musicians do. Many more of the most critically respected UK poets (and those of us who'd quite like to make it someday) have day jobs. Does this mean that we are not real writers? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
It's an impossible mountain to climb and I have long since given up talking about my writing to people. To me now, the most important part is to carry on writing and simply live and breath what I enjoy doing.
A couple of threads today reminded me of this.
I am a writer - not a professional one and that's not all I am, but I'm definitely a writer.
I've had a couple of poems published when I was younger, and I'm working on my book series/trilogy now. If anyone asks me what I do, I say that my day job is working in a callcentre, but really I'm a writer, and the minute I get published (hopefully with enough money to live off for a year), I'll be leaving my day job to write full-time. Here's to wishing and hoping, eh?
It's funny though, because this thread has just reminded me of something a friend said a while ago. I was meeting the girls for a drink one saturday afternoon, on the way to a girlie night in at another friend's house. They got to town before me, and had stopped to get a thankyou card and present for her.
When I arrived, the first thing my friend, Vanessa, said to me was, "Hey, Vic, have you got a pen?"
I always have a pen and a notepad with me, so fished a biro out of my bag and handed it to her straight away.
She then turned to our other friends and said, "See, I said Vicky would have a pen on her. Writers always do."
I don't think I've ever been more moved by a throwaway comment than I was by that one.
*SA*
I am definitely a writer. I went for some time being unpublished but that makes no less a writer than I was before and am now. We write. We aim for publication. We aim for acceptance.
Choosing to be defined as either published or unpublished is irrelevant. It is the writing which makes us whole.
I call my self a writer but an aspiring author. I will only be an author when i am publishd but for the moment i am just a writer.
I think a writer is someone who makes people want to read what he/she has written. My sister just said to me that my previous draft made her want to continue reading... my style of writing lends itself to someone wanting to continue to read it. Which is a huge compliment for me... coz i don't read a book unless it catches my attention in the first chapter. anyway that's off topic. sorry
I write, but I'm not yet what I consider a writer to be.