# How excited are you about writing, and does being so make you 'a writer'?



## Jamie (Jan 21, 2012)

Hi everyone,

I've just started writing my first book, and even though it's something I've always felt like I'd want to do at some stage of my life I've been amazed at just how much fun it is and how excited I am about it.

I had an idea for a book, aimed at children aged 10+, around 5 years ago, and since then a film has been released which was along the same lines as my idea. That was quite annoying, so I've had to change quite a bit about the idea now that I've started. Last night I wrote the first three pages of a chapter (I haven't started on chapter one) and by the time I got in to bed I couldn't take the grin off my face. It sounds daft but I was really quite proud of myself, and have honestly never felt so excited about an idea before. It was all I could think about when I woke up this morning and I couldn't wait to continue.

I'm a graphic designer, self employed, and have work to do for clients, but I just can't stop thinking about my book.

So, basically, do you all feel this way when you start a new story? Is feeling tremendously excited about it all an indication that perhaps this is something I was 'meant to do' with my life?

Thanks!


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 21, 2012)

I don't always feel that way - but sometime within the first couple of pages, it hits. And yeah - it's like living giddy 24-7. Well, at least until the first ](*,) comes up.


----------



## garza (Jan 21, 2012)

Writing has never been exciting for me. It's like breathing, something that's a natural part of living. Sex is exciting but not essential. Writing is not exciting but is essential.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 21, 2012)

I find excitement when I feel I am writing more than just words.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 21, 2012)

Writing makes you a writer. Being excited means that you're excitable. It'll probably come and go.


----------



## WriterJohnB (Jan 21, 2012)

It's not the writing that's exciting, but the steps along the way, i.e. your first 3 pages. It's exciting to finish your first "good" short story or poem or novel. There's the excitement about your first and subsequent sales to magazines, and the first time you hold a printed book in your hands with your name as the author. Royalty checks are nice, but the amount is usually disappointing (at least at this stage in my career.) It's great to get a good review, but it can be a real downer to get a bad one. In between, there are long periods where nothing is happening, other than slogging away at the writing and doing research on history, locale, etc.

As for being a writer, I was an aspiring writer for years, as I wrote stories and chapters for review by my writing group while I improved my craft until I deemed my writing good enough for submission to paying markets. But I didn't consider myself "a writer" until my work gained acceptance. Can you imagine how exciting my first sale to an e-magazine (a poem) was, a poem that got rave reviews on the site's forum and then won an award? After a dozen years of improvement, I was an overnight success. But, as with most writers, I don't make much money at it.

I doubt I'll ever be well-known or well-compensated, but writing is certainly exciting, even as a hobby. And I do have a bookshelf full of novels,  magazines and anthologies that I've been included in. That's worth more than money to me.

Take care,

JohnB


----------



## Jon M (Jan 21, 2012)

Yes, recording my daily word count gives me a little high, and taking a poem or story through several revisions until it is lean and mean is exciting and worth all the pain and (sometimes) bloodshed.


----------



## Grape Juice Vampire (Jan 21, 2012)

I find writing exciting when I'm close to the end of a chapter or I write a paragraph that doesn't need editing. The rest of the time, I'm just enjoying it. For me, the indication that this is something I was meant to do is that I feel like myself when I write and when I'm writing my current novel, I feel at home in its world. You all might find that crazy, but that's how it feels.


----------



## Jamie (Jan 21, 2012)

WriterJohnB said:


> It's not the writing that's exciting, but the steps along the way, i.e. your first 3 pages. It's exciting to finish your first "good" short story or poem or novel. There's the excitement about your first and subsequent sales to magazines, and the first time you hold a printed book in your hands with your name as the author. Royalty checks are nice, but the amount is usually disappointing (at least at this stage in my career.) It's great to get a good review, but it can be a real downer to get a bad one. In between, there are long periods where nothing is happening, other than slogging away at the writing and doing research on history, locale, etc.
> 
> As for being a writer, I was an aspiring writer for years, as I wrote stories and chapters for review by my writing group while I improved my craft until I deemed my writing good enough for submission to paying markets. But I didn't consider myself "a writer" until my work gained acceptance. Can you imagine how exciting my first sale to an e-magazine (a poem) was, a poem that got rave reviews on the site's forum and then won an award? After a dozen years of improvement, I was an overnight success. But, as with most writers, I don't make much money at it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the excellent reply.


----------



## Jamie (Jan 21, 2012)

Grape Juice Vampire said:


> For me, the indication that this is something I was meant to do is that I feel like myself when I write and when I'm writing my current novel, I feel at home in its world. You all might find that crazy, but that's how it feels.



Not crazy, that's exactly what I love about it so far.


----------



## philistine (Jan 21, 2012)

Writing can be exciting, but it can also be horrifically torturous, malevolent and can serve as a huge irritant. However, one must persevere in order to make their masterpiece(s).


----------



## saintenitouche (Jan 21, 2012)

garza said:


> Writing has never been exciting for me. It's like breathing, something that's a natural part of living. Sex is exciting but not essential. Writing is not exciting but is essential.



You took the words out of my mouth, garza. Only I'm gonna have to argue with you, sex is totally essential. Hence the name <--- lol


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 21, 2012)

it's hard to say. excitement is such a loosely used term these days. when i think of 'excitement' i think of a fleeting flash of passion and intensity, like an F5 tornado that charges through everything at a speed and force beyond natural comprehension. in many ways, i do find that existent in the writing process, but sparingly. in some ways i'd wish it was always there, but writing (especially novels) is such an arduous task that i can't say i'm constantly 'excited' when writing. it's there though. i particularly love the excitement that occurs when writing a great scene. when the words tumble out at a rate of hundreds or even thousands per hour. like surfing a great wave, it's a great thing.

when it comes to the way a book makes you feel, like you mentioned not being able to stop thinking about your book even when you can't write, that's a whole other story. that kind of thing  is quite necessary. i don't know if i'd necessarily call it 'excitement', it's not quite as intense as all that most of the time, but it's definitely a strong feeling of emotional attachment to what you're doing. and that is important. i use it often to gauge whether or not something is 'worth it'. one always starts with enthusiasm, but if even just half of that enthusiasm is still there when you're twenty thousand or so words in, then that's usually a sign that you've got something good going on. good ideas may nibble at the line but great ideas swallow you whole, an eighty pound tuna that pulls you in and pulls 'til it hurts, but makes you all the more intent on hauling the sonofab*tch in. so yes, if you call that kind of thinking 'excitement', then i do think you need it.


----------



## yingguoren (Jan 22, 2012)

luckyscars, I completely get what you mean. Writing can at times be incredibly challenging to the point of making me question my skill and dedication to it. It can be frustrating when I'm on the verge of writing a critical scene but can't quite build to that point. And it can cause disputes with friends and family when I'm in the zone and they keep calling to convince me to leave it and go out.

The excitement of writing comes from the feeling that I am doing something meaningful and taking control of a massive part of my life; that I am actively doing something that has the potential to be so fulfilling and rewarding, despite any hardship that comes with it. The excitement, for me, comes from the significance that writing has in my life and from the impact it can make, and not necessarily from those individual moments.

That feeling you get from writing the first few pages may just be the realisation that you are starting out on a fantastic and stellar journey.


----------



## kennyc (Jan 22, 2012)

"Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the 
writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public 
stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his 
work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, 
or the lack of it, each day."
                                                                                        -- Ernest Miller Hemingway


----------



## saintenitouche (Jan 22, 2012)

kennyc said:


> "Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the
> writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public
> stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his
> work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity,
> ...



I agree with this so much kennyc, I feel like being a writer is to destroy one's own relationships over and over and over again simply for the impulse of experiencing the lives of others as a spectator, and the life of myself as a solo artist.


----------



## Chuffmonkey (Jan 22, 2012)

writing does not excite me as i hate writing... having ideas that enable me to question things, that kind of excites me, as it enables me to understand things. once i understand things, then i can start to get them out of my head and onto paper, or a hard drive.


----------



## starseed (Jan 23, 2012)

I'm four years into working on my novel and still as trembling, drooling, insanity provokingly excited about it as I was on day one. I don't know if that makes me a writer, but the fact that I'm on my 5th edit of a full length novel does.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 23, 2012)

All depends on the definition of "writer."

To me, writers get paid to write. When I write fanfic or blog entries I'm a writing enthusiast. When I put on my Technical Writer hat, and get paid for it, I'm a "writer".

The deep down difference? Enthusiasts can pick up the pen and put it down at their leisure, and when inspiration hits. I _have_ to write, or in a month or so I stop buying groceries. It doesn't matter if I don't feel like writing or what I'm churning out feels like garbage, I _have _to work through it, because it's my job. I'm a writer. Just like a construction worker that needs to pop tylenol some days to get through the physical pain, I have to find a way to get through the mental fatigue to get something to the stakeholders.

That's why I've kept my creative work very much at the enthusiast level; I have enough deadlines in my professional work! Someday I hope to reverse the two and gain my income from science fiction writing, picking up technical contracts just to stay sharp and generate a little extra vacation money when needed.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 23, 2012)

My husband is excited about Porsches but, sadly (to him, anyway), that has never made him a Porsche.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 23, 2012)

Capulet said:


> All depends on the definition of "writer."
> 
> To me, writers get paid to write. When I write fanfic or blog entries I'm a writing enthusiast. When I put on my Technical Writer hat, and get paid for it, I'm a "writer".



I write, therefore I am a writer. Payment, publication, whatever - makes no difference. JMO.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 23, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I write, therefore I am a writer. Payment, publication, whatever - makes no difference. JMO.



You are certainly in line with the denotative definition of the word. I know many friends that write beautifully and have never been published, but I wouldn't call them writers. Aspiring writers perhaps, but to me the title implies making one's living off the trade.

I make a pretty mean spinach and feta perogie, but I wouldn't call myself a chef.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 23, 2012)

I get excited, not when I'm writing, but when I'm reading what I've written and it hits me just as hard as when I first put it to paper.  Scenes where the characters are excited and it makes me laugh, scenes where things are tough and it hurts me to read, and everything in between: If my own writing can evoke feeling in me, it's good writing, and that's something to be excited about.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 23, 2012)

Capulet said:


> You are certainly in line with the denotative definition of the word. I know many friends that write beautifully and have never been published, but I wouldn't call them writers. Aspiring writers perhaps, but to me the title implies making one's living off the trade.
> 
> I make a pretty mean spinach and feta perogie, but I wouldn't call myself a chef.



Chef indicates a professional. Writer does not. And there are many, many writers who are published and who get paid who cannot live off their writing.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 23, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Chef indicates a professional. Writer does not. And there are many, many writers who are published and who get paid who cannot live off their writing.



And that's why this comes down to definition. To me, writer connotes professional. Just because they're not making enough to meet the cost of living where they reside doesn't detract from the fact that someone has either contracted or considered their work and paid for it. There has to be some hard line for the definition to be meaningful, and for me it's the transfer of dollars for services rendered.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 23, 2012)

Capulet said:


> And that's why this comes down to definition. To me, writer connotes professional. Just because they're not making enough to meet the cost of living where they reside doesn't detract from the fact that someone has either contracted or considered their work and paid for it. There has to be some hard line for the definition to be meaningful, and for me it's the transfer of dollars for services rendered.



"but to me the title implies making one's living off the trade."

At any rate, one's personal definition doesn't really matter. It's a battle of semantics which has no 'win'.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 23, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> "but to me the title implies making one's living off the trade."
> 
> At any rate, one's personal definition doesn't really matter. It's a battle of semantics which has no 'win'.



Absolutely correct. My reasoning for going with the definition I have is because it removes the semantics from my own thinking. You could also say, "anyone that meets the English Department's standard of correctness, less than 3 errors per 100 words, is a writer" and have a working definition of writer as well. As I said before, my major writing background is in the technical area, so I like something that lets me make definitive divisions. Either of the above works for me, as would many other definitions I'm sure.


----------



## philistine (Jan 23, 2012)

The title of 'writer' is awarded to those who procure a large following, surely. Take Arthur Rimbaud, Sheridan and Dazai, for example.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 23, 2012)

philistine said:


> The title of 'writer' is awarded to those who procure a large following, surely. Take Arthur Rimbaud, Sheridan and Dazai, for example.



I don't consider it a title, certainly not one which is 'awarded'. It seems a bit pretentious, as if it were some sort of exclusive club. It's not. There are good writers, bad writers, published writers, unpublished writers, paid and unpaid - but they are all writers.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 23, 2012)

People can read my writing and decide whether or not they want to call me a writer -- or use whatever criteria they want. I don’t really feel the need to apply the label to myself and it’s not something that really concerns me.


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 23, 2012)

> "but to me the title implies making one's living off the trade."



I'd agree with this definition.  If you're labeling a title upon yourself, you're stating that as your fundamental life/career attribute.  A doctor's/nurse's primary attribute is taking care of people's health.  Putting a bandaid on your child doesn't make you a doctor/nurse.  Similarly, a student writes, but that's incidental to being a student; we don't call students writers.

To be titled as something, it has to be your primary life/career attribute.  When you're working in a different area for a living, writing is simply a hobby, not your primary career attribute; and therefore not your title to claim.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 23, 2012)

Rustgold said:


> To be titled as something, it has to be your primary life/career attribute.  When you're working in a different area for a living, writing is simply a hobby, not your primary career attribute; and therefore not your title to claim.



Well then there's a whole lot of not-writers out there, getting published and getting paid - but nope, they're not writers. Who'll volunteer to tell them? Or maybe they already suspect?



Like I said, a non-winnable argument over semantics. I write; I'm a writer. What you choose to call it doesn't matter.


----------



## Jon M (Jan 24, 2012)

I approach writing with the same discipline as I do my job. Especially when I was writing my first large work. I showed up each day, wrote a minimum number of words, and 'clocked out'. Every day. I wasn't getting paid for it. I still considered myself a writer, though.

I decided long ago I wasn't going to play these stupid word games with myself. For the longest time I had trouble calling myself an artist because it felt pretentious of me, and so bold, to put myself in the same category as the greats. But I learned that all I was really doing was putting myself down, forcing myself to admit that I wasn't "good enough", based on some completely made up 'standard.'


----------



## Artdecovampire (Jan 24, 2012)

It can be naturally exciting, but like commercial forms of art, if you want to earn money, you need to train yourself to write even when your bored and not one bit excited. If you manage it then inspiration and excitement come along on their own and a few lines in you wonder why you weren't excited when you started it.  When I think of 'writing' its the creative stuff that springs to mind, though I often write technical articles and reviews, which to me doesn't need inspiration.  Just focus.  But its this discipline and focus that makes me sit down and create once a day.  The spelling, punctuation and grammar I need to pin down for the banal stuff makes me quite a good self editor.  When you are well in to your manuscript and the excitement wears off, or your editor sends it back with oodles of notes on it, don't loose heart along along with the fleeting excitement.  Sit down and work hard until its done.  I think it was G B Shaw comment about 1% inspiration with 99% perspiration makes success.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 24, 2012)

I get excited about the 34 year-old brunette who works in the deli, and that makes me a dirty old man.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm usually excited when I get a new idea for a plot.

Then, as soon as I begin to write, the excitement wears off, and I'm left trudging away with a frown on my face.

Isn't it great? Lol


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 24, 2012)

the start should be, the middle might be, the finish will be.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 24, 2012)

Rustgold said:


> To be titled as something, it has to be your primary life/career attribute.  When you're working in a different area for a living, writing is simply a hobby, not your primary career attribute; and therefore not your title to claim.



So if you have a published novel or however many, but you keep your day job because the income from your writing isn’t enough to support you or your family -- you’re not really a writer? Weird. I'm betting that a lot of writers out there who are getting paid would say that was nonsense.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 24, 2012)

uh huh, amen. i'd say rustgold's absurd definition would probably make a healthy percentage of those people who regularly produce and publish not writers because, guess what, writing rarely pays that way. the crazy thing about his logic is he would, on the other hand, have to consider some stoned college dropout subsiding on welfare who's still working on some dreadful, unpublishable trash he began five years ago while on his community college creative writing degree to be, conversely, 'a writer' because it would happen to be 'his primary life attribute'. utter baloney. a writer is anyone who masters the ability to write, while simultaneously giving a damn about what he, or she, is writing.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 24, 2012)

Rustgold said:


> Putting a bandaid on your child doesn't make you a doctor/nurse.



just how many doctors or nurses do you know who's main activity on a day to day basis is 'putting a band-aid on'? last time i checked, band-aids were kind of on the amateur side of surgery...

that comparison is a big fail. firstly because medicine is a science for which there is formal training. there is no required formal training for being a writer, at least nothing beyond learning to read or write (which almost everyone, writer or not, can do). it is utterly impossible to be a doctor without knowledge of anatomy, usually attained within an academic environment. i can name you a dozen world-renowned authors who never formally studied _anything_ to do with creative writing and yet proved themselves more than capable of being not just great writers but some of the greatest writers of all time. how about charles bukowski, mark twain, fyodor dostoyevsky? not enough? then how about william shakespeare? now you name me a single person who ever successfully cured a serious illness without any formal understanding, training or experience of medicine? band-aids...sheesh. and the majority of such writers, incidentally, did undertake other jobs in their lifetimes. bukowski worked for the US post office. fyodor was a professional gambler (and a bad one). twain had about a hundred different jobs. are they not therefore worthy of being called writers?

secondly the job of a doctor or nurse is to preserve life through medicine. so, yes, if you insist on using that example, somebody who is not certified a doctor or nurse, but nonetheless possesses the medical ability to save lives (say an army medic or a particularly astute midwife) would indeed be considered to be equivalent to a doctor or nurse by those that received their care. it's not about labels, it's about skills, passion and aptitude. a student could well be a writer. certainly being a student doesn't mean one is NOT a writer. you'd be surprised to know how many 'real writers' are or were students when they became writers. again, skills, passion, aptitude, skills, passion, aptitude. repeat it ten thousand times. then you can go back to polishing the gold placard above your bed that says you're a 'real writer'


----------



## JosephB (Jan 24, 2012)

What's really funny is the idea that are people who aren't published, haven't gotten a paycheck for writing or accomplished much of anything as far as writing goes, yet they think they're in a position to bestow the title of writer on other people. Something there just doesn't add up.


----------



## Loulou (Jan 24, 2012)

To the original poster - yes, I get mightily excited about writing.  During mostly.  Afterwards when editing too.  Even the excitement of being published or winning prizes - as clap-my-hands-smile-all-day exciting as it is - doesn't quite match the joy of actually writing.

I don't care what a 'writer' is or isn't.  It's just a word or definition or description, open to however anyone wants to define it.  But I do know that I'm a writer.  Not because I've been paid for it (regularly, often, and varying amounts) or even because I love doing it so much.  Just because I do it.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 24, 2012)

And I'm pretty sure that anyone who has read your work would have little doubt you are writer.


----------



## Loulou (Jan 24, 2012)

Thank you, Mr B.  I might choose the word artist to describe you - an artist that dabbles in images and words.  How are you?  I'm coming over to your great land in about eight weeks.  Visiting LA.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 24, 2012)

Heh. Thanks. We’re all doing great. Work is crazy – so not much writing these days. When you pass over the Appalachians, look out the left side and wave.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 24, 2012)

Let's see, I draw my primary paycheck as an engineer and manager, so other engineers see me as an engineer, the folks who report to me see me as a manager.  I also teach manufacturing classes at a local college and my students view me as a teacher.  Then there is the group of amateur astronomers locally, and a wider group on-line, who consider me an amateur astronomer.  The book sellers who sell my novel, those who have read it, and the folks who've read my newspaper stories and trade publication articles would tell you I'm a writer (although I've made precious little money doing it so far).

I see myself as all of those things.  Why must we be just one?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 24, 2012)

Until I get published, I'm not a writer.  I'm just another guy who scribbles words onto paper.  Is the seven year old who makes a story for school a "writer"? Is the guy who runs a blog that two people read a "writer"? Of course not.  To be considered a writer, some authority (a publisher) needs to recognize you.  Otherwise, you're just a regular Joe.



JosephB said:


> What's really funny is the idea that are people who aren't published, haven't gotten a paycheck for writing or accomplished much of anything as far as writing goes, yet they think they're in a position to bestow the title of writer on other people. Something there just doesn't add up.



Yeah! And what are those movie reviewers doing? I haven't seen any movies from THEM.  And how can the Nobel committees nominate people if the members haven't earned the prize themselves? And how can a judge call someone a criminal if that judge hasn't committed any crimes himself? Something there just doesn't add up.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 24, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Until I get published, I'm not a writer.



If that's how you want to view yourself, fine. But I see myself differently, and I wouldn't presume to tell someone else how they must view themselves.


----------



## yingguoren (Jan 24, 2012)

Rustgold said:


> I'd agree with this definition.  If you're labeling a title upon yourself, you're stating that as your fundamental life/career attribute.  A doctor's/nurse's primary attribute is taking care of people's health.  Putting a bandaid on your child doesn't make you a doctor/nurse.  Similarly, a student writes, but that's incidental to being a student; we don't call students writers.
> 
> To be titled as something, it has to be your primary life/career attribute.  When you're working in a different area for a living, writing is simply a hobby, not your primary career attribute; and therefore not your title to claim.



Okay...! So, even though I read every day, I can't actually call myself a reader because it's not my 'life/career attribute'?

Isn't the word that everyone seems to be missing 'author'? Anyone who writes is a writer; anyone who has had work published and/or made money from it is an author. (Or a journalist, reporter, etc.)


----------



## JosephB (Jan 24, 2012)

Only on a writing site are you going to see people eking a topic out of what they should call themselves.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 24, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Only on writing site are you going to see people eking a topic out of what they should call themselves.



Really. Writer, author, artist - who cares except another writer/author/artist who feels the need to label everyone. :sleeping:


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 24, 2012)

I get excited in the way you describe.  Sometimes it stops me from sleeping.  I have spent many nights up writing until sunrise and loved it.  However, most of what I write is rubbish.   But I think having a good feeling for your characters and story is an indication that it is the right thing for you to do, and could mean that you will do it well.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 24, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Until I get published, I'm not a writer.  I'm just another guy who scribbles words onto paper.  Is the seven year old who makes a story for school a "writer"? Is the guy who runs a blog that two people read a "writer"? Of course not.  To be considered a writer, some authority (a publisher) needs to recognize you.  Otherwise, you're just a regular Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah! And what are those movie reviewers doing? I haven't seen any movies from THEM.  And how can the Nobel committees nominate people if the members haven't earned the prize themselves? And how can a judge call someone a criminal if that judge hasn't committed any crimes himself? Something there just doesn't add up.



Are you kidding? If you’re not, your comments are contradictory. First you’re saying that there is some criteria for being called a writer – that you need to be recognized by an “authority” to make the call – and then you’re saying there’s a problem with me thinking it’s silly that wannabe writers are in any position to judge.

Which is it?

Otherwise, it’s apples and oranges. Movie reviewers and Nobel Prize committee members aren’t about deciding how people should identify themselves. It’s about evaluating the work or the accomplishments of the individual. A judge makes a decision based on the law – it’s not a value judgment. Those are terrible analogies.

I just think it’s odd for anyone to claim he can present specific criteria that qualifies someone as a writer. It’s seems especially odd coming from people who haven’t managed to do much of anything themselves. And I bet the people who have actually accomplished something don’t spend a whole lot of time talking and thinking about whether or not they should call themselves writers. The whole discussion is silly.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 24, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Are you kidding? If you’re not, your comments are contradictory. First you’re saying that there is some criteria for being called a writer – that you need to be recognized by an “authority” to make the call – and then you’re saying there’s a problem with me thinking it’s silly that wannabe writers are in any position to judge.



Looking back at your post, I may have misunderstood what you said.  I interpreted it as, "What the heck are you amateurs doing, passing judgment on what makes someone a writer? None of you have been published!" My point was that you don't need to be a writer in order to say someone else is or isn't.

I stand by my point, but if that's not what you were saying, then I retract it as a criticism of your post.  The reason for all of this talk, though, is that the term "writer" is much more subjective than most.  It's like some teenager who knows three chords on his guitar calling himself a musician.  Is he? Technically, yes, but he's not what people mean when they talk about musicians.  If I hum a tune out of nowhere, am I a composer? Again, yes, but not what others would consider a composer.

Yes, strictly speaking, anyone who writes anything is a "writer."  However, the term has connotations associated with it that imply some degree of talent and recognition.  I don't think it's at all unfair for people to say, "This person is/isn't a writer," based on that.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 24, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> just how many doctors or nurses do you know who's main activity on a day to day basis is 'putting a band-aid on'? last time i checked, band-aids were kind of on the amateur side of surgery...


Exactly, but according to some definitions here, anyone putting on band-aids would be considered medical practitioners, or doctors.



luckyscars said:


> that comparison is a big fail. firstly because medicine is a science for which there is formal training. there is no required formal training for being a writer, at least nothing beyond learning to read or write (which almost everyone, writer or not, can do). it is utterly impossible to be a doctor without knowledge of anatomy, usually attained within an academic environment. i can name you a dozen world-renowned authors who never formally studied _anything_ to do with creative writing and yet proved themselves more than capable of being not just great writers but some of the greatest writers of all time. how about charles bukowski, mark twain, fyodor dostoyevsky? not enough? then how about william shakespeare? now you name me a single person who ever successfully cured a serious illness without any formal understanding, training or experience of medicine? band-aids...sheesh. and the majority of such writers, incidentally, did undertake other jobs in their lifetimes. bukowski worked for the US post office. fyodor was a professional gambler (and a bad one). twain had about a hundred different jobs. are they not therefore worthy of being called writers?


First of all, writing is a science for which there is formal training. I have a four year degree in communications, focusing in technical writing and information architecture. I can look at my work as it evolved, and I am _light years_ beyond where I was before my formal training. To say all it takes to be a writer is to know how to read and write is overly simplistic to say the least.

I can assure you Dostoyevsky didn't wake up one day, put down the cards and say "I'm going to write something" and then crank out Crime and Punishment. Formal training isn't required, but the alternative is a _lot _of hard work and dedication to improving your craft, with innate talent, imagination, and life experience factoring in heavily.



luckyscars said:


> secondly the job of a doctor or nurse is to preserve life through medicine. so, yes, if you insist on using that example, somebody who is not certified a doctor or nurse, but nonetheless possesses the medical ability to save lives (say an army medic or a particularly astute midwife) would indeed be considered to be equivalent to a doctor or nurse by those that received their care. it's not about labels, it's about skills, passion and aptitude. a student could well be a writer. certainly being a student doesn't mean one is NOT a writer. you'd be surprised to know how many 'real writers' are or were students when they became writers. again, skills, passion, aptitude, skills, passion, aptitude. repeat it ten thousand times. then you can go back to polishing the gold placard above your bed that says you're a 'real writer'



I think you betray your own position here. You say that an army medic may have the same skills, passion, and aptitude as a "certified doctor" but they're not one, only "equivalent". The difference, of course, is that a doctor has gone to school, taken formal training, and been certified as a doctor. You can be the same in every single way, you can even have gone through medical school and washed out on the last day, but without that formal recognition you are not a "doctor."

The title of "Writer" is a bit different, but the theory holds for how I've defined it. You can be passionate about it, you can write lots of fanfic and stories and chill on the board and talk about writing, you can even be really, _really_ good at it, but until you're cranking out some sort of work that garners compensation you're not a "writer." Writers get paid to write.

That's my own definition, it fits all the authors you mentioned above, and it allows me put Orson Scott Card and my seven year old niece who writes about kittens in different categories. Your definition may fit for your needs, and I suggest you roll with it if it does, but it doesn't work for mine.


----------



## yingguoren (Jan 24, 2012)

Capulet said:


> I can assure you Dostoyevsky didn't wake up one day, put down the cards and say "I'm going to write something" and then crank out War and Peace.



No, but Leo Tolstoy may have done!

Sorry, couldn't resist it.


----------



## yingguoren (Jan 24, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Only on a writing site are you going to see people eking a topic out of what they should call themselves.



Everyone on this forum ought to care about semantics and the uses and misuses of language. It's a very useful tool for creating complex ideas and characters in novels. Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' uses it to great effect in its 'War is Peace' and 'Slavery is Freedom' slogans.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 24, 2012)

yingguoren said:


> No, but Leo Tolstoy may have done!
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist it.



Doh!  Stupid Russian authors with their "Blank and Blank" books! Crime and Punishment is now in place. ha ha!  Ah the Internet, where one can be egg-faced one moment, and have it edited away the next.

Fortunately I've never tried to make a living writing books about Russian Literature, or I might lose my "writer" title by my own definition!


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 24, 2012)

I brought this up to some published, money-earning friends of mine (including one who earns her living at it and one who has three published books and still works a day job) and they laughed themselves silly. If people need to get that picky about definitions and "what it _really _means", I'm inclined to think there are some self-esteem issues going on. Seriously - who cares?


----------



## JosephB (Jan 24, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I interpreted it as, "What the heck are you amateurs doing, passing judgment on what makes someone a writer? None of you have been published!"



That’s not exactly it. I was referring more to someone’s notion that writing needs to be your primary or only source of income. It’s  funny to me that someone would take it upon himself to establish that kind of criteria for others -- especially if they haven’t accomplished anything themselves.



yingguoren said:


> Everyone on this forum ought to care about  semantics and the uses and misuses of language. It's a very useful tool  for creating complex ideas and characters in novels. Orwell's 'Nineteen  Eighty-Four' uses it to great effect in its 'War is Peace' and 'Slavery  is Freedom' slogans.



That’s quite a leap. I didn’t say people shouldn’t care about semantics of the misuse of language in general. I’m talking about this specific topic and people’s ideas about what makes a writer. If you want to care about it, fine – but I’m not losing any sleep over it.


----------



## Chuffmonkey (Jan 24, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Until I get published, I'm not a writer. I'm just another guy who scribbles words onto paper. Is the seven year old who makes a story for school a "writer"? Is the guy who runs a blog that two people read a "writer"? Of course not. To be considered a writer, some authority (a publisher) needs to recognize you. Otherwise, you're just a regular Joe.




hans christian anderson was a cobbler by trade and had more than 40 documents to his name before he became published... so what you are saying is that the godfather of childrens stories was an ordinary joe until he became published? only he had written the ugly duckling, the emporers new clothes and the little mermaid as three of the forty.

if you can write, you are a writer... if you have an agent and publishing deal, then you are a published writer... however, if being a writer is measured by success, you are a snob


----------



## Capulet (Jan 24, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I brought this up to some published, money-earning friends of mine (including one who earns her living at it and one who has three published books and still works a day job) and they laughed themselves silly. If people need to get that picky about definitions and "what it _really _means", I'm inclined to think there are some self-esteem issues going on. Seriously - who cares?



Well, considering how many people have multiple posts on the topic, or have polled their published, money-earning friends about it, I'd say lots of people care!

I've stressed from the start it's just my definition, and I only have it because my personality leans towards being able to apply clearly defined lables to _everything._ Remember where I said my degree's in technical writing and information architecture? That's not just a career, but me taking the very good advice Lucky gave about following aptitudes and passions.

Like I said: there's a million definitions, and everyone should just roll with what works for them. I'm not going to stress out too hard on someone choosing a different one, or try to tell them they're wrong. _This isn't even the debate thread! _I really just wanted to share my take on the OP's original question, not put anyone's knickers in a twist.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 25, 2012)

Anybody who writes is a writer.  So that would make most of the population on Earth.  The discinction being made here I assume is what makes one a published writer.  Or is there a difference between a published writer and an unpublished writer.   I have written 4 books, several essays, and countless business reports.  Nothing has been published.  I have never sent anything to an agent or an editor, never even written a query letter.  

I still consider myself a writer.


----------



## yingguoren (Jan 25, 2012)

Capulet said:


> Doh!  Stupid Russian authors with their "Blank and Blank" books!



Indeed! It didn't alter the point you were making anyway.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 25, 2012)

yingguoren said:


> Indeed! It didn't alter the point you were making anyway.



Plus it was still factual. Dostoyevsky didn't wake up one day and crank out War and Peace.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 25, 2012)

Capulet said:


> Well, considering how many people have multiple posts on the topic, or have polled their published, money-earning friends about it, I'd say lots of people care!



A discussion does involve commenting, does it not? Or are people only allowed one post per discussion? And I didn't "poll" my friends - I mentioned it and got that reaction. The extent of my caring is to have a good laugh about it. I mean, really...


----------



## Capulet (Jan 25, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> A discussion does involve commenting, does it not? Or are people only allowed one post per discussion? And I didn't "poll" my friends - I mentioned it and got that reaction. The extent of my caring is to have a good laugh about it. I mean, really...



It does involve commenting. Part of commenting is answering questions. You asked who cares, and I put forward my theory. The fact that you fit it almost to a tee is _purely_ coincidental.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 25, 2012)

Discussing something does not necessarily mean you care about it.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 25, 2012)

True, but I've always relied on evidence over claim when taking that measure.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 25, 2012)

Well, I've posted several times in the thread, and I really couldn't care less about any of it. You can take my word for it -- or not. I don't really care about that either.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 25, 2012)

Clearly. It's awesome we've generated 5 pages of content about something nobody does, or should, care about.

I wonder, is this how Twilight was written? Maybe we're unknowingly starting down a dark road humanity will never forgive us for taking...


----------



## JosephB (Jan 25, 2012)

I’ve been hanging around writing sites a while, and from what I’ve seen, some people really do care about it – and attach a lot of importance to the “writer” label. I’m definitely not one of them.

There’s a great deal of yammering on writing sites about stuff like this and the general nature of writing. But really, I don’t care how you do it, when you do it, where you do it, what you’re  wearing when you do it or what music you’re listening to when you do it -- and I don’t care what you call yourself or what you think you should  be called just because you do it. I only care about the writing – what you’ve written and what you have to say about what I’ve written – and that’s it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 25, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Discussing something does not necessarily mean you care about it.





Capulet said:


> True, but I've always relied on evidence over claim when taking that measure.



People chat about a lot of things that catch their attention at the moment. Certainly doesn't mean their life is going to change because of it, or that they'll even remember the whole discussion the next day. Some of the definitions given caught my attention. And I'll probably continue to comment until some other bright shiny object comes along.


----------



## kennyc (Jan 25, 2012)

Well posting on forums is one form or writing, eh?


----------



## JosephB (Jan 25, 2012)

If you're talking to me -- it's a form of writing, sure -- but that's not what I'm talking about. I suspect you know that.


----------



## Arctic Ice (Jan 27, 2012)

OP: I actually have similar circumstances, myself - I'm a graphic artist, originally, and working on my first serious stab at a story. Only, I wouldn't consider it excitement so much as a terrible affliction akin to what I suppose malaria must feel like. :apthy:

It's exploring in a jungle filled with man-eating predators and no machete to blaze the trail, no map to show you the way, no tent to sleep in at night. You wake with a start at the slightest sound and have to move to a new spot before trying to rest again. It's horrible, but I love the jungle.

Exciting and terrifying at once, I think. _That's_ more like it.  :-D


----------

