# Can anyone be a writer?



## bdcharles (Aug 28, 2018)

Well? Can they?

Prompted by Kyle R's post on writing speed plus a million uplifting gifs and blogs on the subject, I often wonder about this. The tweets and so on tend towards the "If you put two words together, you are an Awesome Writer", "Go you!" sort of thing. I just don't know if I actually, honestly believe it. I like the solidarity it suggests. I'm sure it's good for these people's self confidence, and that's fine. I'm not sure if it's ... good for the craft. I like for there to be a line that one must cross, a set of stripes to earn, to be able to call oneself by a particular label. 

What saith WF? Am I just bitter etc?


----------



## Plasticweld (Aug 28, 2018)

Anyone can be a writer, not everyone can be a storyteller.   The gift is in what you say and its impact, that is what is remembered and cherished.    The crazy guy in the park standing up for hours and babbling on, is not a public speaker either.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 28, 2018)

Everyone can be a writer. Not anyone can be a writer worth reading.

I stand by my view that nobody is actually a writer until they have started AND finished something that at least one human being has read and verified.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 29, 2018)

I think there are different purposes for writing. I think anyone can be a writer for their own entertainment, personal expression, therapy, etc. Anyone can put words on a page.

But I agree with luckyscars that it takes more than that to be a writer other people are likely to enjoy reading.

Can anyone, with time and effort, develop into being a writer that others can enjoy? I'm not really sure. It certainly seems to come much more easily to some than it does to others.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Aug 29, 2018)

No, but lots of people think they could be, think of the number of armchair quarter-backs you know...


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 29, 2018)

I firmly believe that, if one has an obsessive enough drive, and puts in enough hours of work on the craft, their chances of making it (as a professional writer) are pretty damn good.

The writers who've already made it? They don't have any miraculous genome that separates them from the rest of humanity. They're not geniuses, or savants, or gifted.

Aside from those lucky few (those who struck lightning on their first attempts), the majority of today's working writers got to where they because of two things: they were motivated enough to succeed, and stubborn enough to not give up until they did.

But that's the real sticking point for most people: the amount of drive needed to succeed. I believe, if you truly want to maximize your chances of making it, you want to be _obsessed_ with writing. Obsessed to a point where most people would think it's unhealthy. :grief:

When others are on YouTube, you're writing. When they're chatting on forums, you're writing. When they're out socializing, you're writing, writing, writing.

And you're not just writing out of some grim sense of obligation—you're writing because it's your passion, your love, your _madness_.

You're a _writer_, damn it, and _hell_ if anyone's going to stop you from pounding those keys, or scribbling that pen.

It's no guarantee that you'll make it (in life, there are few guarantees about anything), but it'll certainly give you a leg up over all the other writers who don't have that same level of devotion.

Want to be a pro athlete? A pro musician? Pro writer? Same difference, any way you cut it: you better work your ass off.


----------



## bdcharles (Aug 29, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I firmly believe that, if one has an obsessive enough drive, and puts in enough hours of work on the craft, their chances of making it (as a professional writer) are pretty damn good.
> 
> The writers who've already made it? They don't have any miraculous genome that separates them from the rest of humanity. They're not geniuses, or savants, or gifted.
> 
> ...



Yes, that's exactly it, to me. I think of it as following your obsessions, which is really just another word for passions albeit with crappier window-dressing. I imagine that if you're sufficiently mad about something, that almost idiot desire to engage with it over and over, and for no other reason than it brings pleasure, or relief, or something, is what drives you. You have to work your ass off _not _to do it.

Of course, there's me, chatting on forums.


----------



## bdcharles (Aug 29, 2018)

Plasticweld said:


> Anyone can be a writer, not everyone can be a storyteller.   The gift is in what you say and its impact, that is what is remembered and cherished.    The crazy guy in the park standing up for hours and babbling on, is not a public speaker either.



Oh, gosh. Little fills me with greater dread than being expected to tell a story. I just ... it took me years to build up to it even with my kids. Compared to the world's raconteurs, I have no great anecdotes, nothing to say. But with writing, I can take my time geeking out over the perfect construction. Everyone has their thing they like to do, I suppose. Some people are great at dealing with other people - they just handle them deftly. It's pretty incredible, imo.


----------



## Plasticweld (Aug 29, 2018)

My kids and my wife are my greatest fans.  I often write about friends and our experiences together or my small town.  The greatest joy is reading someone the story I wrote about them. The local newspaper loves anything  that is about our area.  

There is a craft to writing, then there the ability to speak with some level of knowledge.  This is where I put into play, write what you know.  


I can't imagine making up some story and expecting anyone to give a hoot about some fictional character in a fiction place.  I can however envision everyone enjoying a story about them.


----------



## Sam (Aug 29, 2018)

Depends on what your definition of 'writer' is. 

Is a writer someone who writes words on a page? 

Someone who finishes a project?

Someone who has had their work read by someone else, but not for critique? 

Someone who has been traditionally published and made money from writing? 

Broader context is required here.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 29, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I firmly believe that, if one has an obsessive enough drive, and puts in enough hours of work on the craft, their chances of making it (as a professional writer) are pretty damn good.
> 
> The writers who've already made it? They don't have any miraculous genome that separates them from the rest of humanity. They're not geniuses, or savants, or gifted.
> 
> ...



Intuitively that seems right, but I am not sure it is so in practice. Most of the writers who make a living at it do not seem to spend their whole time writing, they say things like 'The kids go to school and I write from ten to four thirty', or 'I have tried sitting up all night writing, but when I get up next day and look at it I just hit ctrl a delete, after the first six hours it is all rubbish.'

I am told that when Terry Pratchet worked, before he worked as a writer, he wrote 400 words a night every night, and if he wrote 100 words and finished a story he wrote the first 300 of the next one. I reckon that sort of discipline is effective. It works in other spheres as well, my daughter is a serious musician and practices every day for a set period, she is enthusiastic as well, but it is discipline that hones her craft.


----------



## Underd0g (Aug 29, 2018)

If it's any help, this is how I became an artist.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 30, 2018)

People who have never written before such as say Chelsey Sullenberger for example, sold books, so it seems like it can be done.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 30, 2018)

ironpony said:


> People who have never written before such as say Chelsey Sullenberger for example, sold books, so it seems like it can be done.



Well, sure... but first you've got to land a commercial jet liner on a river in a major US city. And then, almost certainly, you have to hire a ghost writer...


----------



## Ken11 (Aug 30, 2018)

Anyone can be a writer, they only have to have passion for writing. I would go even further; this passion has got to hurt.


----------



## Phil Istine (Aug 30, 2018)

I actually think most people could be writers, but some would have to work at it a lot harder than others.
For some people the basics such as a reasonable grounding in spelling and grammar are in place from an early age.  For others, that is a bigger challenge.
Then there is an ability to fit words together to match the story, allowing them to flow when the story's path is smooth, and forcing them to trip a reader when the protagonist lies knackered on craggy rocks.

And then there are those lucky few who were born with a Parker pen in their mouth.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 30, 2018)

I am firmly of the opinion that the story is the heart and soul of fictional writing. Sentence structure can be easily aided by a good editor, but no amount of editing can support a flop of a story.

Therefore, I believe the imagination and creativity of coming up with the story is paramount to fictional writing.

Nonfiction is different. Gather facts and figures, organizing them, and translating jargon are all useful skills. Good spelling and grammar help, too.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 30, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I am firmly of the opinion that the story is the heart and soul of fictional writing. Sentence structure can be easily aided by a good editor, but no amount of editing can support a flop of a story.
> 
> Therefore, I believe the imagination and creativity of coming up with the story is paramount to fictional writing.


I completely agree, though I also believe that storytelling is a learnable skill, as well.

Which is to say, I don't agree with the philosophy that some writers have, when they propose that some writers are "born storytellers" and others aren't. To me, that's just silliness. It also seems to be used as an excuse, sometimes, as if to say, "Well, of course _they_ found success; they were obviously born with a gift for words."

Sorry to say (to anyone who feels otherwise), but, in my opinion, _nobody_ is a born storyteller. It's an entirely learned skill.

My recent stories are much better than my first flailing attempts. Practice doesn't necessarily make perfect, but it sure does lead to improvement. :encouragement:


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 30, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I am firmly of the opinion that the story is the heart and soul of fictional writing. Sentence structure can be easily aided by a good editor, but no amount of editing can support a flop of a story.



The part about a good concept and story being vital is undoubtedly true, but it works both ways. No story can work when the writing quality is fundamentally not good enough. 

Off the cuff I think of somebody like Dan Brown. A talented storyteller in his genre whose chronic lack of solid writing technique continues to alienate certain readers. Notwithstanding the man is a worldwide bestseller I know there are people who don’t like his books simply because they are prone to the weak style. A writer of his stature of course need not care — he has plenty of fans — but for a novelist working in a more niche genre and with even worse skills than Brown this would likely be a real pain point.

I honestly think folks generally overestimate the impact of editors. They are useful, sure, but even the most hands-on editor is not there to be your English teacher or collaborate line by line. That is a ghostwriter. Dan Brown is by no means the worst author and had the help of many editors yet it didn’t prevent ridiculous sentences like this “_Physicist Leonardo Vetra smelled burning flesh, and he knew it was his own.”  _making the cut. God knows how a really technically inept writer would have fared writing that story.

No, a good writer has to be able to write sentences adequately with or without editors. It’s no different than a professional mathematician needing to know how to count.


----------



## Annoying kid (Aug 30, 2018)

The answer is no. 

Most people are self defeating when it comes to writing. "I don't have time" or "I have no ideas" or "how do I start?"


----------



## Bayview (Aug 30, 2018)

Ken11 said:


> Anyone can be a writer, they only have to have passion for writing. I would go even further; this passion has got to hurt.



Damn. I sure do have a lot of books published for someone who isn't a writer...


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 30, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I completely agree, though I also believe that storytelling is a learnable skill, as well.
> 
> Which is to say, I don't agree with the philosophy that some writers have, when they propose that some writers are "born storytellers" and others aren't. To me, that's just silliness. It also seems to be used as an excuse, sometimes, as if to say, "Well, of course _they_ found success; they were obviously born with a gift for words."
> 
> ...



Whether it's being born with talent, or practicing much earlier in life (childhood), there are folks who have talent for lots of things : drawing, singing, sports, or story telling. It's silly to deny that. It's not a perfectly even playing field.

Is that a reason to give up? If it is, then you won't be a (fill in the blank). Whatever it is that you don't have "natural" talent, you can let that stop you from pursuing or enjoying that activity, or give it a go anyway.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 30, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> The part about a good concept and story being vital is undoubtedly true, but it works both ways. No story can work when the writing quality is fundamentally not good enough.
> 
> Off the cuff I think of somebody like Dan Brown. A talented storyteller in his genre whose chronic lack of solid writing technique continues to alienate certain readers. Notwithstanding the man is a worldwide bestseller I know there are people who don’t like his books simply because they are prone to the weak style. A writer of his stature of course need not care — he has plenty of fans — but for a novelist working in a more niche genre and with even worse skills than Brown this would likely be a real pain point.
> 
> ...



It's funny that you said a good story can't work if it's poorly written, then proceedes to give an example that disproved your statement.

A bad story, even if well written is likely to sell less than a good story "poorly" written, in my opinion. Largely because one person's idea of a "poorly" written story won't match everyone else's. And your example proved that quite well.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 30, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Well, sure... but first you've got to land a commercial jet liner on a river in a major US city. And then, almost certainly, you have to hire a ghost writer...



True, true, yes.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 30, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> It's funny that you said a good story can't work if it's poorly written, then proceedes to give an example that disproved your statement.
> 
> A bad story, even if well written is likely to sell less than a good story "poorly" written, in my opinion. Largely because one person's idea of a "poorly" written story won't match everyone else's. And your example proved that quite well.



My only point in bringing up Brown was that his lack of technical ability did cost him readers (I know this because I know people who do not read anything he puts out solely because the man tends to write like a thirteen year old) and that editors did not help to avoid his poor sentence structure, common throughout the text, which is what you stated they do. On the other hand I fail to see where his poor sentence structure would have gained him readers. Therefore its a detractor. 

But yes, you are correct that its not been a problem for him in his market and to that extent I suppose he is an argument in favor of bad writing...if you want to look at it that way. I don't know, and Brown aside it does not seem like a wise approach for most people to pay lip service to style _especially _in genres where a higher standard of technical prose is absolutely needed - such as literary fiction. In most people's cases a good or even great story is simply not enough to make up for absurd execution and it is simply disingenuous to say not to worry much about style "_because editors"_. I'm sorry if bringing up Dan Brown made the point diffuse.

I am not willing to go there as to whether a bad story that is well-written is more viable than a good story that is badly written. Seems a strange and pointless thing to contemplate, rather like whether a house without a roof is better than a house without walls. You are, of course, quite free to write great stories as incompetently as you want.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 30, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> My only point in bringing up Brown was that his lack of technical ability did cost him readers (I know this because I know people who do not read anything he puts out solely because the man tends to write like a thirteen year old) and that editors did not help to avoid his poor sentence structure, common throughout the text, which is what you stated they do. On the other hand I fail to see where his poor sentence structure would have gained him readers. Therefore its a detractor.
> 
> But yes, you are correct that its not been a problem for him in his market and to that extent I suppose he is an argument in favor of bad writing...if you want to look at it that way. I don't know, and Brown aside it does not seem like a wise approach for most people to pay lip service to style _especially _in genres where a higher standard of technical prose is absolutely needed - such as literary fiction. In most people's cases a good or even great story is simply not enough to make up for absurd execution and it is simply disingenuous to say not to worry much about style "_because editors"_. I'm sorry if bringing up Dan Brown made the point diffuse.
> 
> I am not willing to go there as to whether a bad story that is well-written is more viable than a good story that is badly written. Seems a strange and pointless thing to contemplate, rather like whether a house without a roof is better than a house without walls. You are, of course, quite free to write great stories as incompetently as you want.



LOL!

Every writer alienates a certain percentage of the population. Most hope the alienated percent is small, that's all. To make a big deal out of people not liking any particular author is silly.

In case there is any confusion, I am all for writing to the best of your ability. But without a decent story, you've nothing more than a pile of manure.

Just for fun, I'll consider your two houses.
Hmmm. A house without walls or one without a roof. The roof has a chance of keeping me dry when it rains, and walls can be added. Walls without a roof means I get wet, and the walls get damaged, meaning they won't last long. Pretty easy choice for me. 

We are all free to write as competently or as foolishly as we like. I seriously doubt the expression of my opinions will sway anyone.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 30, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> LOL!
> 
> Every writer alienates a certain percentage of the population. Most hope the alienated percent is small, that's all. To make a big deal out of people not liking any particular author is silly.



I think the difference is that most successful writers don't invite widespread ridicule for their inability to string relatively basic sentences together without employing absurd imagery/ silly malapropisms: "_As he advanced, his dark eyes seemed to scorch the earth before him, radiating a fiery clarity that forecast his reputation for unblinking severity in all matters."  __or__ "__Overhanging her precarious body was a jaundiced face whose skin resembled a sheet of parchment paper punctured by two emotionless  

_Precarious body? Radiating a fiery clarity? Forecasting a reputation? None of this makes sense. These are clearly avoidable gaffes by an otherwise educated man. So the problem appears to be lack of attention/priority given to style. It's not a "big deal" but it is proof that bad technical skill hurts work and costs readers. I'm glad we're no longer saying that editors are the cure, at least.



Jack of all trades said:


> In case there is any confusion, I am all for writing to the best of your ability. But without a decent story, you've nothing more than a pile of manure.



The problem is you made the mistake, in my view a mistake, of stressing one as being more deserving of attention than the other. That's the part I reject. I never said a decent story was not important, that's a given. But as somebody who buys and reads a great deal of Indie novels I can also name many decent (or at least not terrible) stories that are completely undermined by poor writing. This all goes back to the original point: not everybody is cut out for writing professionally. That is true even if they are a pretty good storyteller.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 31, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> I think the difference is that most successful writers don't invite widespread ridicule for their inability to string relatively basic sentences together without employing absurd imagery/ silly malapropisms: "_As he advanced, his dark eyes seemed to scorch the earth before him, radiating a fiery clarity that forecast his reputation for unblinking severity in all matters."  __or__ "__Overhanging her precarious body was a jaundiced face whose skin resembled a sheet of parchment paper punctured by two emotionless
> 
> _Precarious body? Radiating a fiery clarity? Forecasting a reputation? None of this makes sense. These are clearly avoidable gaffes by an otherwise educated man. So the problem appears to be lack of attention/priority given to style. It's not a "big deal" but it is proof that bad technical skill hurts work and costs readers. I'm glad we're no longer saying that editors are the cure, at least.
> 
> ...



Frankly, I've seen sentences similar to your examples in pieces posted on this site, and they were lauded as good to excellent by some members.

I think you are confusing style with competence. You dislike that style of writing. Obviously there is a percentage, a significant percentage, of the population that likes or at least does not mind that style.

I still say a good story trumps good sentences when it comes to sales. And a good editor can tell an author how to improve the sentences. For all we know, his editor told him to change those sentences you quoted and the author refused. But the story was strong enough that the publisher proceeded with publication anyway.

If you can pick out those sentences as needing work, what makes you think a moderately competent editor can't do the same? Are you somehow superior?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 31, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> The answer is no.
> 
> Most people are self defeating when it comes to writing. "I don't have time" or "I have no ideas" or "how do I start?"



Not that they can't be a writer though, just that they stop themselves for whatever reason, as I said in another thread where someone was asking for advice on starting

"get writing materials, computer, whatever. Place bum firmly on seat. Write for a reasonable period. Have a rest doing something completely different. Return and write some more. Keep doing this until you finish. Put it away for a couple of weeks or months while you write something else. Get it out and read it. Start editing.

I am actually fairly serious, if you really want to do it disciplining yourself to regular application to the physical process is fairly essential."


Essential quality … literacy, the illiterate can't do it, mind you this says nothing about the *quality* of the writing. Fortunately for some this seems to have little relation to popularity of the writing.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Frankly, I've seen sentences similar to your examples in pieces posted on this site, and they were lauded as good to excellent by some members.
> 
> I think you are confusing style with competence. You dislike that style of writing. Obviously there is a percentage, a significant percentage, of the population that likes or at least does not mind that style.
> 
> ...



- News flash: Many people on this site don’t necessarily always know what they’re talking about. This thread demonstrates that more than adequately I’d say!

- Bad style (style by its literary definition, not in terms of how you comb your hair) is as sure a sign of incompetence as any I can think of. But okay, sure...Dan Brown has a great style. Plenty of people love the way he writes, especiallg his habit of using words incorrectly. It’s not wrong, it’s a “difference of opinion”. 

- For the umpteenth time, I am not saying anything “trumps” anything. That’s your hobby apparently. I’m saying all aspects of writing require roughly equal attention and effort for a piece to work. I don’t know why you insist on constantly trying to force a hierarchy where one doesn’t belong. It’s a bogus premise, a childish analysis.

- I am convinced based on your responses you have never actually worked with an editor of any sort. I’m not going to engage. If you did you would almost certainly be aware of why those sentences were unchanged and why your constant harping about how editing is the cure for bad sentence structure is wrong. Regardless, editing is very definitely not the subject of this thread so we will leave it there. Thanks.


----------



## Annoying kid (Aug 31, 2018)

Nottingham Trent University offered a short course this summer called "How to start writing a Novel". It  was a 9 day course that cost a laughable £240. :rofl:


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 31, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> - News flash: Many people on this site don’t necessarily always know what they’re talking about. This thread demonstrates that more than adequately I’d say!
> 
> - Bad style (style by its literary definition, not in terms of how you comb your hair) is as sure a sign of incompetence as any I can think of. But okay, sure...Dan Brown has a great style. Plenty of people love the way he writes, especiallg his habit of using words incorrectly. It’s not wrong, it’s a “difference of opinion”.
> 
> ...



I understand that you think all parts are equal. I was merely reiterating my opinion. Why you thought the opposite, I don't know.


----------



## Darkkin (Aug 31, 2018)

I've had teachers look me in the face and tell me I didn't know how to read, and that I could not possibly write...Yet somehow I am still doing both.  Probably not effectively, but I still string words together in the semblance of a sentence.  And considering that this word stringing is one of the few hobbies that holds my interest, do I have the right to say I'm a writer?


----------



## Annoying kid (Aug 31, 2018)

> If you can pick out those sentences as needing work, what makes you think a moderately competent editor can't do the same? Are you somehow superior?



Publishers get so may submissions they can usually just pick the manuscripts with  great story AND great prose. As the internet has taken much of their business away, they aren't taking on fixer uppers so much anymore. They want money now.


----------



## Darkkin (Aug 31, 2018)

The internet, while immensly helpful, has the unfortunate side effect of making everyone an instant expert on everything...


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2018)

I think Bayview hit it on the head quite well in an earlier post. Anyone can be a writer, not anyone can be a good writer, fewer still can sell their work.

Frankly this entire debate makes me think of a high school graduate I once interviewed who put down "Senior Prefect" on his resume and thought that would be impressive or relevant to the real world. It's not. It's a made up title that means little or nothing. Like "hall monitor" or "crayon collector" or whatever else seems super important to whoever has it.

Yes, Virginia, you are a Writer. You're also a Breather, a Sleeper, a Pooper and a Pee-er....and you are definitely a Talker. Now go away and write something worth reading ride:


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 31, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> ... there are folks who have talent for lots of things : drawing, singing, sports, or story telling. It's silly to deny that.



I don't deny that talented people exist—I just don't find it particularly noteworthy. (Which isn't to say that I scoff at talent, but that I scoff at the notion of talent being something that only occurs if a person has been "blessed" by God/fate/destiny, et cetera.)

Mostly, I consider talent to simply be a result of extensive practice; something that anyone can attain, with enough time and devotion. It's not something given—it's something earned.

Sure, reaching a level where people refer to you as talented isn't something that comes easily—but it's not impossible, either. And it's certainly not magical, mysterious, or something that's reserved for only the inherent few (at least, not in my opinion).

Talent is simply what you get after you've thrown a ton of dedication, hard work, and time into that blender. :encouragement:


----------



## Darkkin (Aug 31, 2018)

Just like driving, reading, surfing, or reading...Writing is nothing more than a learned skill.  It is not an identity, merely one aspect of an individual's skill set and/or interests.  One is not wholly defined by a vaguely specific construct, (an abstract noun (verb + er) ).  The writer being, be definition anyone who writes anything.  Seek to use it as an identifier, be prepared to get specific.  Author, reporter, poet, essayist, critic, novelist...Where does the writing fall within the parameters of the skill?  Hobby, published, ghost written, technical, copy editing.  Labels mean exactly nothing without context and corroborating evidence.

Sum total, I like to write but it is not an identity...According to the parameters of the definition of writing, anyone can be a writer, not all will be to equal the challenge or effective in their efforts.  Some who are published, are painful to behold by discerning readers and some who remain unpublished are a delight to discover.  The only commonality to be found, is the act of writing, thus rendering the origin sources writers.  It is the creative medium in its vaguest possible form, free of the shadings of the individual.  And it is only through the individual that words take on voice and meaning.

A joke from a singular wit, is not a comedian wrought.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 31, 2018)

I am thinking if I ever go back to college it would be for a school for disabilities. Education and time will hopefully improve my english. I hope I can study again since my eldest brother is going abroad because he is a diplomat and he is qualified for the job. In new york that is, there will be many schools. That's if the plans don't change, and my parents like the idea. Because of this I say no dream is impossible if you have enough passion to want to do it. I'm a good example of someone whose english is necessary to be mastered to learn how to write properly. And to make my story presentable.

English can be mastered for most people if they have the money and support.

That's because more and more colleges specialize in special education inside the united states. Whatever the carreer someday I will correct the english skills. Story is another matter but I think talent generates a myth like kyle said. In addition I think its helpful to get a education suitable if someone has difficulties. Of course, I don't know when that will be. But you need to believe in yourself to get something done about any sort of problem.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2018)

Darkkin said:


> The internet, while immensly helpful, has the unfortunate side effect of making everyone an instant expert on everything...



"Instant"? You're wrong. 

FYI some of us spent years taking Genius Studies at the University of YouTube.


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 1, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> "Instant"? You're wrong.
> 
> FYI some of us spent years taking Genius Studies at the University of YouTube.



You missed a trick there as the facebook ones are far easier.


----------



## lumino (Sep 6, 2018)

I know that I'm not a great writer, which may be evidence that only some people can be great writers considering I have wanted to be one for a long time now, but I have not even practiced enough to come to that conclusion. Every once in a while I will write something in a short period of time and rush to post it, (mostly in the past on a different forum), and then people will criticize it, saying it is devoid of sense or lacking in clarity, and they will say that I have a poor command of the English language. And I know that many of them probably think I can improve, but I know that some of them probably think I can't. Those people might think that I've practice quite a lot, but I don't consider myself to have practiced much at all compared to those who are great writers. 

But I appreciate the advice that many of them gave me, because they attributed my lack of clarity and poor usage to the fact that I had been striving for rhythm without first putting my thoughts down. Unfortunately, I didn't really understand what they were trying to tell me for a long time. They were not telling me that I shouldn't aim for rhythm, but that clarity of thought is more important. It seems that a lot of times when I try to write rhythmically without first writing down my thoughts in a rough draft, I create a mess even worse than a rough draft. 

Anyway, my opinion is that anyone of at least average intelligence can become good at anything if they practice enough. Since I have not practiced writing enough, (although I may have written a lot of garbage with no intention to write well), I cannot honestly say that I know for sure that I can't become a great writer.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 6, 2018)

There's is no intelligence test or scholastic aptitude test to say you can't be a writer. Just try to write more. If you have not already. I mean this in a good way. Don't give up. I think stephen king said it himself in on writing, that almost anyone can be a writer. But of course English is important. Of course, too, these opinions are my own. But notice since I am a teacher at least, I can affirm those two facts. You don't need to be smart to be a writer either. It is backed by research. But the most successful ones often were smart. I am stating this in response to your reply. I know I am not really following all the posts so far since I know my opinion probably is a very different one from others. Time imo is one of the biggest obstacles for writers.


----------



## moderan (Sep 7, 2018)

Most of the inefficiency in this thread is based on the OP not defining the term.
It looks "Publishing professional writer" is what is meant here by 'writer'. So few people here have any idea what that is or what it takes. But they sure think they do.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 7, 2018)

Reading is a prerequisite of writing something as well. I will invest in books that influenced people. Right now I want to expand my genres and read the genres that started and inspired other writers. The ones that were unique at their time. Whichever the point of view, people need to read and expose themselves to these different works.

I am also going to try to make a goal to read the new wave authors, or 2 novels, once a month. Also will pick up specific novels of the new genres that influenced generations of writers maybe of the new wave.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 7, 2018)

moderan said:


> Most of the inefficiency in this thread is based on the OP not defining the term.
> It looks "Publishing professional writer" is what is meant here by 'writer'. So few people here have any idea what that is or what it takes. But they sure think they do.



Fair point. I suppose I do mean "published writer".


----------



## Excelsior88 (Sep 7, 2018)

Well in that regard, wouldn't anyone who has been self-published as well as traditionally published put plenty of people into that category?  I mean, they are technically published regardless of how they were published and regardless of how well-written the work is.  It still may not mean they're a very good author, but could be considered an author nonetheless.

If you're excluding self-published then that drastically cuts down the amount of writers.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Sep 8, 2018)

Theglasshouse said:


> Reading is a prerequisite of writing something as well. I will invest in books that influenced people. Right now I want to expand my genres and read the genres that started and inspired other writers. The ones that were unique at their time. Whichever the point of view, people need to read and expose themselves to these different works.I am also going to try to make a goal to read the new wave authors, or 2 novels, once a month. Also will pick up specific novels of the new genres that influenced generations of writers maybe of the new wave.



If your goal is to improve your own writing, I recommend sticking with popular authors that you enjoy reading. Maybe even read several by one author before moving on to another. That way you immerse yourself in that style so you can absorb more of what works for you.


----------



## moderan (Sep 8, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> Fair point. I suppose I do mean "published writer".


As is pointed out immediately above this, no. You mean "traditionally published writer", or "working writer" or something similar. Someone who makes their living with words and knows enough to be careful with them.
You might call this concern pedantic, but I do not. Language is plastic enough. Define your terms.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 8, 2018)

Now I'm confused.
What were we arguing about?


----------



## Excelsior88 (Sep 8, 2018)

The philosophical meaning of writer... Wait, no... I don't know. I think we need more clarity.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 12, 2018)

Maybe "Yes, but not all will get read" covers it ?


----------



## SilverMoon (Sep 12, 2018)

"Can anyone be a writer?"

Has anyone praised you for being a very _talented _or _creative_ writer?  These two words are not one in the same.

Talent - is _innate._ You're born with it, stuck with it. It's in you DNA. Nothing, no one can take it away from you. 
Creativity - is simply an _action_ word. Think of it as calisthenics of the mind. If it's not exercised you have the mere potential of becoming a writer. 

Yes, anyone can be a writer but maybe the question should be "Can anyone be an effective writer?"


----------



## moderan (Sep 12, 2018)

SilverMoon said:


> "Can anyone be a writer?"
> 
> Has anyone praised you for being a very _talented _or _creative_ writer?  These two words are not one in the same.
> 
> ...



Yes. Many times. It is how I developed the courage to later become a professional. It's 'one AND the same'. Misused idioms are a pet peeve.

Also, "an" action word. Sorry for the pedantry, but as said, a bug for me.

The question as revised is "Can anyone become a professional writer?" The answer is yes. There are many fields that involve writing without a high degree of dependence on imagination. Technical writing and journalism are two of those. The ability to string words together in pleasing fashion can be taught. But there are natural storytellers (that's the 'talent'). They can usually be identified as children...they will be the ones that are lying to you about where they got that candy.


----------



## SilverMoon (Sep 12, 2018)

> Also, "and" action word. Sorry for the pedantry, but as said, a bug for me.


Yep. Meant_ "an _action word". Sorry. Bugs me, too.

Moderan, do you mean to say that there is no difference between the gift of talent and the act of creativity?


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 12, 2018)

moderan said:


> As is pointed out immediately above this, no. You mean "traditionally published writer", or "working writer" or something similar. Someone who makes their living with words and knows enough to be careful with them.
> You might call this concern pedantic, but I do not. Language is plastic enough. Define your terms.





Excelsior88 said:


> The philosophical meaning of writer... Wait, no... I don't know. I think we need more clarity.



Yeah, I don't know really - whatever a "writer" means to each of us, I suppose. It's an open discussion. For me, there seems to be (perhaps in my mind) some intangible line past which people can call themselves a writer and be believed. I think I had seen one too many "You are a writer if you put two words together" type motivational tweets that day and I just thought: "Nah." But maybe I'm wrong. Where do we each draw lines? I tend towards using labels where they're hard-won, rather than used as goals - but that's just me. I think if I had a couple of short stories published and a full MS under consideration by an agent, or some sales as a self-pub, then I might think about calling myself a writ_er_. Til then, I'm writ_ing_.


----------



## Excelsior88 (Sep 12, 2018)

I'll know I'm a writer when people tell me I'm a writer.  Otherwise, I'm just a guy who's writing down some ideas to see if anyone wants to read them.


----------



## moderan (Sep 12, 2018)

SilverMoon said:


> Yep. Meant_ "an _action word". Sorry. Bugs me, too.
> 
> Moderan, do you mean to say that there is no difference between the gift of talent and the act of creativity?



Imagination is the talent. The putting together of words in pleasing fashion and the application of ass to chair are teachable. The act of creativity is the application of said talent to the art in question. So no. The party of the first part enhances the party of the second part, though.



bdcharles said:


> Yeah, I don't know really - whatever a "writer" means to each of us, I suppose. It's an open discussion. For me, there seems to be (perhaps in my mind) some intangible line past which people can call themselves a writer and be believed. I think I had seen one too many "You are a writer if you put two words together" type motivational tweets that day and I just thought: "Nah." But maybe I'm wrong. Where do we each draw lines? I tend towards using labels where they're hard-won, rather than used as goals - but that's just me. I think if I had a couple of short stories published and a full MS under consideration by an agent, or some sales as a self-pub, then I might think about calling myself a writ_er_. Til then, I'm writ_ing_.



A _writer_ is someone who writes something. You're either being deliberately obtuse or applying some assumption to the term that it doesn't have.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 12, 2018)

Is it sort of a title-vs-descriptor issue? Like, a writer is someone who writes, but a Writer is... whatever else.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 13, 2018)

Sorry I haven't commented on this thread in a while...but I was busy WRITING.


----------



## moderan (Sep 13, 2018)

I did two daily columns and a short story since my last answer. Writer! Yahoo, right? Sheeee-yit.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 14, 2018)

moderan said:


> A _writer_ is someone who writes something. You're either being  deliberately obtuse or applying some assumption to the term that it  doesn't have.



I just don't think it's that cut and dry. I could saw a bunch of  wood and nail some stuff together, even do a couple of dovetail joints  but I would disagree that it makes me a carpenter. To me, there is a  sense of apprenticeship about any craft, whereby to legitimately call  oneself something takes time, skill, having one's work being held in  esteem by others further along the line, or by who have a vested  interest in the product. It's rather an obtuse topic.



Bayview said:


> Is it sort of a title-vs-descriptor issue? Like, a  writer is someone who writes, but a Writer is... whatever else.



That may well be how I see it. I guess calling "someone who writes" a writer is correct but only in a very basic sense of the word, which I would argue most people don't use. I am typing on my laptop right now, so I am ... a typer? A typist? At which point does something we do become something we are?


----------



## moderan (Sep 14, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> I just don't think it's that cut and dry. I could saw a bunch of  wood and nail some stuff together, even do a couple of dovetail joints  but I would disagree that it makes me a carpenter. To me, there is a  sense of apprenticeship about any craft, whereby to legitimately call  oneself something takes time, skill, having one's work being held in  esteem by others further along the line, or by who have a vested  interest in the product. It's rather an obtuse topic.
> 
> 
> 
> That may well be how I see it. I guess calling "someone who writes" a writer is correct but only in a very basic sense of the word, which I would argue most people don't use. I am typing on my laptop right now, so I am ... a typer? A typist? At which point does something we do become something we are?



No, it _isn't_ an obtuse topic, and (nit!) it's 'cut and dried' (and it really is). Words mean certain things. A 'writer' is someone who writes something. Dictionary sort of definition. Your version here reads like it should be capped, as Bayview had it, as maybe Writer, meaning someone who purveys their trade for a living, as opposed to being a hobbyist or wannabe.
This is semantic hairsplitting, and I'm sorry, but your end is illogical and rather frizzy. You're imbuing the word 'writer' with a significance it just doesn't have. It's _not at all akin_ to a _DIY carpentry enthusiast_. I don't understand why it's so hard to see that...
One of the great things about _writing_, to me, is learning the terms for things. I know what a manchette is, and how to speak pidgen Ceazarnie, as a result of researching the piece I put up in the workshop. Knowing the proper terms for things enhances the chances of the products of my writing to find markets, which I do, as I am a Writer.
Capische? Nicht wahr? See what I mean?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 14, 2018)

I sorta agree with BD.
Sure, anyone who writes is a writer....but what type of writer?
Just because someone scratches out a short story doesn't make them Tom Clancy.
There are writing enthusiasts, self-pubs, vanity press writers, Indies, journalists, and professional writers, to name a few.


----------



## Excelsior88 (Sep 14, 2018)

Well then I guess we need to define even more.  So are we asking about being a writer or more simplistically being an author.  I can say I'm a writer because I write, but it doesn't necessarily make me an author, journalist, etc.  Again, what's the defining line here?  I'm reminded of a kind of logic that goes like this: all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles. so all authors are writers, but not all writers are authors.  But even that is subjective I'd say because authors can be published in different ways that some may not consider as them being true authors.


----------



## moderan (Sep 15, 2018)

[Rant]Jesus. And you people are writers? Doesn't that word have any definition at all?

Let's try this one:



> A *writer* is a person who uses written words in various styles and techniques to communicate their ideas.



Or is it too hard to follow that literal literacy argument? Of course you can say you're a _writer_ because you _write_.
Yall make my head spin. It's the very definition of the damn word. It describes an act, not an attitude. If it's capitalized, why then it becomes Important, or More Important.
This is a pretty common misapprehension of the word, too. I notice dumb things like this on Google:


> Do all writers have a degree?





> What are the qualities of a good writer?



And it makes me crazy, cuz that's the same logic that says it's okay to _sign off on things_, or to be 'pacific' when you want to describe something exactly.

Say what you mean. Use the right words. Look them up if you don't know. Why fall into that trap?

That last one? Here's what it says:



Attention to Detail. Great writers are observers, always taking mental notes and noting subtle changes around them. ...
Discipline.
Clarity. ...
Strong Vocabulary. ...
Open to Changes. ...
Passion for Reading. ...
Strive for These Qualities.
Yeah, like 'strive for these qualities' is a quality. More bad writing. The rest, well, I think they speak for themselves.

[/rant]


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 15, 2018)

There does seem to be a strong supposition that "writer" and "writer of fiction" are synonymous. I find myself writing all sorts of stuff for people from a pamphlet for the English club in Liviv to motions to be presented to party conference. That ticks some boxes, you need to be clear and concise, but a passion for reading? Observant of what is around me? I suppose they help, but only in the general ability of expression, more important for them, being able to convert a translation from Ukrainian into standard English, or a verbose trade unionist's type script into a simple question. 


For me it is about ordering thoughts and presenting them in a logical, comprehensible manner. That is something that rarely happens verbally unless someone is reading from a prepared speech, but it is also a skill which, I believe, can change one's entire life once you have it, even applied casually.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Sep 15, 2018)

There's all kinds of writing. Being good at one kind doesn't automatically make you good at another. It helps, but only a fool would believe there's no difference. Look at sports. Squash is different from racketball. Being a champion in one does not make you champion material in the other. And those are both different than tennis. Sure, eye-hand coordination is needed for all three, but there's other factors, like strategy, that differs. 

Also, sitting down and writing does not guarantee improvement. One can repeat the same poor stroke in golf or tennis and never advance to a higher level. The same is true of writing. Can one learn and improve without outside assistance? Some can and some can't.

Is there natural talent? Sure. Can one improve without it? Sure. But not all will improve to the point of going beyond hobbyist. It's foolish to think otherwise. 

So what am I saying to members here? If your dream is to be a writer, go for it! I cannot offer a guarantee of monetary success, but you can still have personal satisfaction. And maybe, with persistence and a willingness to learn, you will have monetary success too.

The only guarantee is in the negative -- you will not be a writer if you don't make the effort.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 15, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> At which point does something we do become something we are?



Everyone will, of course, have their own definition of this, since it's mostly a question of personal identity.

For me: when it's on your mind when you wake, and still on your mind when you fall asleep.

When you dream about it.

When, whether you're getting paid to do it or not, it's still your idea of the perfect fusion between work and play.

When you do it because it'd be absurd _not_ to.

When, if you haven't had the chance to do it recently, you feel agitated, bothered, unsettled.

When discussions like these fascinate you, because it's about this thing that you love.

When discussions like these bother you, because you want to tell everyone to quit arguing and get back to writing.

When, even while participating in these kinds of discussions, something keeps tugging at the hem of your consciousness, pulling your thoughts back toward your WIP. :encouragement:


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 15, 2018)

moderan said:


> No, it _isn't_ an obtuse topic



This is where you and I differ, and because we do, that's precisely what makes it an obtuse topic. That's my interpretation anyway. Others will no doubt draw their own conclusions.



moderan said:


> Words mean certain things. A 'writer' is someone who writes something. Dictionary sort of definition.



Agreed. And I agree that words mean particular things. They do. But words can also have multiple meanings. Some people take things literally, and would say a "writer" is someone who writes. That's an accurate statement. But it's not the only accurate statement. What are they writing, why, and how often do they do it? When my mother wrote me a letter, was she a writer? I suppose she was, briefly, for 20 minutes or so, a letter-writer. But if someone had asked her "are you a writer?" she probably would have said no. Yet she was. But also she wasn't. It didn't form a persistent part of her identity, but it described ber quite accurately at a point in time.



moderan said:


> You're imbuing the word 'writer' with a significance it just doesn't have. It's _not at all akin_ to a _DIY carpentry enthusiast_. I don't understand why it's so hard to see that...



It's not at all hard for me to see your angle. But I also put it to you that that angle is not the whole story, namely that it is akin to DIY carpentry or what-have-you in that they're both conceivably pastimes or jobs, the undertaking of which will hold varying significance for those that do them, and that people may have to go through a similarly shaped learning curve to suss out the skills, and so on. Degrees and details will vary of course.



moderan said:


> One of the great things about _writing_, to me, is learning the terms for things. I know what a manchette is, and how to speak pidgen Ceazarnie, as a result of researching the piece I put up in the workshop. Knowing the proper terms for things enhances the chances of the products of my writing to find markets, which I do, as I am a Writer.
> Capische? Nicht wahr? See what I mean?



Sure. I do. And I agree. Conversely, do you see what _I_ mean? Because one of the joys of writing, to me - alongside expanding one's vocab - is learning to express things in terms of other things, for an even juicier juicy impact. And see: there's no juice involved in writing. There's not even any impact in the physical sense. I used those terms outside of their literal meanings, yet I imagine people got what I was saying anyway, precisely because of those grey areas.

Wow. This got deep. I didn't intend for this to get so deep. For me it did anyway. I usually shy away from these sorts of "What does X even mean?" topics. I suppose at the end of the day it doesn't actually matter. What matters is our output, not what we do or don't call ourselves.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 15, 2018)

Really it is less important the definition of a writer, and more important that we each have a specific goal in mind.
I am an *Indie publisher*, and I embrace that categorization.
I have a dream of getting an Indie-published book on the NYT best seller list.
I know what I am, and I know where I want my writing to take me.

Figure out what you wanna be, and work towards that end.  If you are a writing enthusiast and wanna become a professional writer, then work towards that.  Splitting hairs over definitions won't help you write a book.


----------



## moderan (Sep 15, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> There does seem to be a strong supposition that "writer" and "writer of fiction" are synonymous. I find myself writing all sorts of stuff for people from a pamphlet for the English club in Liviv to motions to be presented to party conference. That ticks some boxes, you need to be clear and concise, but a passion for reading? Observant of what is around me? I suppose they help, but only in the general ability of expression, more important for them, being able to convert a translation from Ukrainian into standard English, or a verbose trade unionist's type script into a simple question.
> 
> 
> For me it is about ordering thoughts and presenting them in a logical, comprehensible manner. That is something that rarely happens verbally unless someone is reading from a prepared speech, but it is also a skill which, I believe, can change one's entire life once you have it, even applied casually.



And without that extensive reading, which taught you how to order words in pleasing fashion as others do, at the very least, where would you be? Observant? Yes, because otherwise all you'd write about would be interior.



bdcharles said:


> Wow. This got deep. I didn't intend for this to get so deep. For me it did anyway. I usually shy away from these sorts of "What does X even mean?" topics. I suppose at the end of the day it doesn't actually matter. What matters is our output, not what we do or don't call ourselves.



Y'see...the lack of reading is what gets us into these thickets. People used to read and listen to the radio, and, while words carry their own emotional weight according to experience(s), the words generally meant the same thing to different people. Nowadays, interpretation is truth, and that differs from person to person. Few things have solid ground, and the inexpert feel as qualified to express as the learned.
As Writers, words are our tools. We cannot help the interpretation of those words, once inscribed and perused, given the previous (not that one shouldn't care). We can only try to influence said interpretation through word choice.
As writers, we're simply going through the motions, putting language symbols on the page. There's a performative difference, a matter of intent. The bulk of the great unwashed are writers. Those who perform with intent are Writers. At least that's my argument in a nutshell, as formed here.
I do care about interpretation. My way of Writing is to make most of the story happen in the reader's mind, as they associate the various words, clues, references, jokes, into a reasonably coherent whole. This means that I need some idea of how that is all defined, at least in order to put the picture forth so that the dots can be connected.
Deep is good. Dive in.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Sep 15, 2018)

Not everyone is observant. Sad but true.

The New York Times has very specific criteria for books on the best seller list. Getting a review from the New York Times is , if I recall correctly, on of the points. In order to get reviewed by the Times, your book has to be available through nationally recognized distributors. I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't count. (Yes. I checked it out.)


----------



## clark (Feb 6, 2021)

Today, I stumbled across this thread--dormant for over two years--and it reminded me of how often "people like us" seek validation for what we do or want to do or be and, if we get that sorted out a bit, we start gnawing away at "definitions" of our activities or whether this bit is *really *a 'poem' or that bit a short story or CNF or . . . wurra, wurra, wurra. What the fuck is going on?! Now, more than ever, we need to get past this mad impulse to categorize and get on with what we want to do with words. Usually with words. If you're looking for templates, please STOP.  In the history of humans scratching stuff down on cave walls, stone tablets, scrolls, paper, and computer screens, i doubt that Form has ever been more fluid, more open, in poetic and prose expression. To define is to limit, as Dr. Johnson realized when he published the first Dictionary in English in 1755 , and for writers to accept "limits" from any source, right now, is downright dangerous. Is she "virus" or "virus'-deny"? Is he "mask" or "anti-mask"? Coming up--those who are "vaccine-carded" and those who are not. Hmm--we will have to DO something to those who do not vaccinate, right? How about forcing them to wear BADGES, to show their category? Extreme, yes, but we must save ourselves!

Am I being paranoid? Probably. But it is a healthy paranoia, based on the utter confusion of world governments and all the lesser jurisdictions as they rush towards significant actions to stop the spread of this insidious killer! No one, including health "Authorities" know what to do. Wear masks? Yes. No. Choose one. Can't? Do not worry, we'll do it for you. Stay 6' apart! Er, maybe 8? Would you settle for 3? No--we don't know either. . . . No! Grandma must die alone, in her plastic bubble. You cannot visit. Hmm. This is traumatizing entire families, now THEY need help. Must categorize families into "cannot visit", "maybe visit", "must visit". Errr--who'll do that? 

The IDEAL SOLUTIONS to all these little issues is to categorize everything into tidy, controllable, MANAGEABLE  bits . Everyone staying home all the time, would be perfect. It would also be the end of human "societies" and the economies that fuel them . . .but we can force them all into models as close as possible to that Ideal . . . . 

The very best of governments, those which genuinely want to do right by their people , , ,are desperately confused and casting about for solutions of any kind. Every one of those solutions involves identification, control, and information-gathering on their citizens. All of which can so easily, invisibly, morph into benevolent  control and fascism. Your WRITING, in whatever form and with whatever personal intent, is a critical alternative voice to the headlong rush for categorization and control that is roaring like a mad storm throughout the world. I do not give a fuck what you write or if you're a "writer" by category. Nor do I care if you write 'direct action' political poems/stories --few of us write political works well--al I care about is that we stop looking for templates . . .and write. *FORM *, right now, is unimportant. Do not  ](*,).

HOWL instead . . . . . . . . .

_________________

PS
As Velo notes on the last line of his 'signature':  "Don't fuck with writers, we will describe you." -unknown


----------



## Cool Breeze (Feb 6, 2021)

I'd say I suppose it depends on what you mean by writer. 

The loose definition is someone who writes, for any given reason, but the broader scope, and I'm only surmising here, would be in terms of writing something enjoyable that someone might want to part with their money to read. That's a harder set of skills to accurately define. 

Under the right circumstances, just about anything is possible, but I don't think anyone has been able to quantify the difference between a successful and non-successful writer inasmuch as what they do differently. I've read peer-reviewed articles that suggest perseverance and luck plays enough of a role to matter, but that's not particularly scientific. 

Unless something has changed dramatically in the last few decades, I've yet to see a formula for writing a best-selling work of fiction. You could copy the trends of the day, and you're welcome to do so, but it doesn't guarantee success. 

Therefore, the art of creating a memorable and enjoyable piece of fiction seems to be something esoteric that, for all intents and purposes, cannot necessarily be taught. My mother once told me, "You can clean up a pig, put a ribbon on its tail, spray it with perfume, but it's still a pig".


----------



## ritudimrinautiyal (Feb 7, 2021)

Phil Istine said:


> I actually think most people could be writers, but some would have to work at it a lot harder than others.
> For some people the basics such as a reasonable grounding in spelling and grammar are in place from an early age.  For others, that is a bigger challenge.
> Then there is an ability to fit words together to match the story, allowing them to flow when the story's path is smooth, and forcing them to trip a reader when the protagonist lies knackered on craggy rocks.
> 
> And then there are those lucky few who were born with a Parker pen in their mouth.





Phil Istine said:


> I actually think most people could be writers, but some would have to work at it a lot harder than others.
> For some people the basics such as a reasonable grounding in spelling and grammar are in place from an early age.  For others, that is a bigger challenge.
> Then there is an ability to fit words together to match the story, allowing them to flow when the story's path is smooth, and forcing them to trip a reader when the protagonist lies knackered on craggy rocks.
> 
> And then there are those lucky few who were born with a Parker pen in their mouth.



Quite a distinction I agree with. Path is same, for some rough, for some smooth, for some they are following it because they came across, in those instants and found it appealing. For some a dream they had hold back for some spark blowing time..... 


Ritu


----------



## ritudimrinautiyal (Feb 7, 2021)

Annoying kid said:


> The answer is no.
> 
> Most people are self defeating when it comes to writing. "I don't have time" or "I have no ideas" or "how do I start?"



Most of the time.... I do that. Your words reminded me of me. I wish my heart to take those as exact words... and move toward self winning phase.


----------



## indianroads (Feb 7, 2021)

Can anyone become:
A writer : yes
A painter : yes
A musician : yes
A sculptor : yes
An engineer : yes
A billionaire : yes
.
.
.
The list goes on.
But does everyone have the drive to do these things? No.
All that anyone can ever want lies just beyond our reach - but we have to have the courage and determination to leap across the chasm of uncertainty and doubt, and put in the hard work to attain them.

To paraphrase Ray Bradbury, we have to leap of the cliff of doubt and build our wings on the way down.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 7, 2021)

Wow I noticed this thread started in 2018. l read Caroline Sees book Making a Literary Life a badillion years ago. And I wish I would read more than the 2 books on writing than the 2 I have read so I would have someone or something else to talk about. Anyway, Caroline See addresses this age old issue in her book. She makes a joke of our aspirations. She talks about some guy who makes metal sculptors that sit in his mothers back yard and going to your friends comedy club night and watch her sweating against a brick wall.
Are these people artists? Caroline who sounds kind of like a warm hearted by prickly person said yes they are and you are too. She kind of goes on to say and I read this book over 20 years ago. That who are you to writing about eating a hamburger or something like this. And the book is great because it is about leading a writers life. Oh and someplace else I read about butt glue. Yes the time spent in a chair with ones butt glued to the chair. although with computer programs like Dragons Tooth or Mouth you can just talk and maybe do housework and write now. So maybe it is a metaphorical butt glue. 

Here is to the metaphorical butt glue.


----------



## JBF (Feb 9, 2021)

Anybody with the drive and the technical ability to operate a pencil or a keyboard can be a writer.  Will they be good?  Probably not.  Most aren't.  Some are.  A vanishingly rare few can make it a source of significant income, if not a living.  

Having spent twenty-odd years making mistakes and wandering various fora, some things become apparent.  

For one, if you have the urge to try writing, you do it.  You don't wait for books on the subject or join a forum.  You spend the opening stages of your writing pastime in the dark, going it alone.  You probably suck.  That's fine.  Everybody's garbage when they start.  Eventually you've put in the time and your writing gets better.  Still nowhere near ready for the publisher, but readers can identify things like plot and character and don't have an aneurysm trying to read your short story.  

There are no shortcuts.  This is cruelly apparent when a newly-minted forum/group member shows up with the mostest bestest idea ever...and if you could just explain to them how to write a novel (or better yet, co-write with them) that'd be great.  This is a game where you are most decidedly on your own hook.  Ain't nobody pushing your story but you.  Chop-chop.  

Nobody's going to care that you write unless you make it big.  A few friends might.  Most of them probably won't give you feedback beyond "Cool" or "Tell me when you get published and I'll buy a copy".  Which is great, but it's not worth much now.  You can sit at Starbucks typing away and quietly broadcasting to the world that you're on the way...big whoop.  Everybody's writing the Great (Whatever) Novel these days.  You can wear tweed and smoke a pipe.  Style yourself the next Whomever.  Painstakingly punch our your manuscript key by key on an antique typewriter.  All of this is window dressing if you can't or won't put in the time to make it work.  

Most don't take the time to learn the rules.  We all know that the Literary Greats bent, broke, or ignored the writing fundamentals from time to time.  Some made it a signature.  Point is, they understood enough of what they were doing to make it work.  If your work is a study in misspellings and run-ons, work on that first.  Write something you wouldn't be embarrassed to hand in for a grade.  Nobody trusts draftsman who can't draw.  Nobody's paying money for practice-level work, either.  Get adequate, then you can worry about getting good.  Great, _if _it happens, is a long way off.  

Some can't read criticism.  Either they burn down and rebuild at the drop of a hat or they dig their heels and fight the suggestion that their baby is less than perfect.  This probably speaks more to the confidence of the writer; there's a point when you have to realize an actual weakness, and there's a point when your critters (well intentioned as they are) are either picking nits or trying to change your style to fit their own.  There is also the possibility of readers just being a poor match for your work.  It's fine, it happens, and it doesn't reflect poorly on either party.  

So...long way around to a short point: almost everybody can write, some shouldn't, some will grow into it, and most of us should probably have a day job.


----------



## Foxee (Feb 9, 2021)

I can call myself anything that I want. If I call myself a kangaroo that might cause some cognitive dissonance. 
_(Since we're on the interwebs and you can't see me I'll just explain for anyone in doubt that I am not, in fact, a kangaroo)._

Cognitive dissonance is helpful if I WANT to be a writer and I'm putting words on the page and I'm learning. It doesn't mean I'm a good writer, it just means that by putting that tag on myself I can leverage that expectation. If I'm a writer and I'm not writing that cognitive dissonance says, "Hey, you're not doing your job" and hopefully gets my butt back in my seat to write, to learn, to keep moving forward...so calling myself a writer is a prod to improving, it's a promise I want to fulfill.

That might get me as far as being an 'aspiring writer'.

And that's where, okay, I can buy that "Anyone can become a (some kind of) writer." The question is, can anyone become a "Writer" without a further qualifier.

I can't help feeling that question is above my pay grade (which, right now, is just about zero) but I do think that anyone can become some kind of writer. Maybe not a great writer, maybe not a naturally talented writer, maybe not a traditional writer.

Something that I find very interesting is how writing seems to attract people who have dyslexia or Asberger's or other cognitive challenges and all that seems to do is make them more determined. I'm truly amazed that people who don't speak English as their original language so often aspire to write in English. That sounds like an intimidating challenge to me!

Is Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule referring to deliberate practice correct? Can practice take the place of talent? How important is talent, anyway?

Maybe I could figure it out but, seriously, nobody's paying me enough to.


----------



## VRanger (Feb 9, 2021)

Foxee said:


> And that's where, okay, I can buy that "Anyone can become a (some kind of) writer." The question is, can anyone become a "Writer" without a further qualifier.
> 
> I can't help feeling that question is above my pay grade (which, right now, is just about zero) but I do think that anyone can become some kind of writer. Maybe not a great writer, maybe not a naturally talented writer, maybe not a traditional writer.



I think that cuts to the chase. I think anyone COULD become a writer, but it's going to be a lot more work for some. I see beginner efforts from people whom it's evident never made better than a C in English in their entire school career. That's not a good starting platform. Then there are people quite obviously trying to copy a certain style, and don't get there ... and people who break numerous rules, never in a good way. These are the would-be writers who don't have the natural talent you mentioned, nor the education. Those folks could become effective writers, but it's going to take a lot of study and a lot of believing critique. Many people are unwilling to do either. And that's just to get to a good place technically. We haven't even begun to discuss the additional skills needed for a good tale told well.

Then we get to the other side of the question ... a good reader.  Yesterday in a Facebook group centered around an excellent author, I came across a recommendation for a nine-book sci fi series. I read as much of Book One's Amazon sample as I could stomach. The style was entirely juvenile, the story was trite, and every bit of dialogue was cliché. It was filled with numerous typos and dollops of bad grammar. I wondered if the author had improved as he went, so I started the sample of Book Nine. Same problems. Yet a reader who KNOWS what good writing is recommended it. AND, the books didn't have a high sales rank, but I've seen far worse. The worst book out of 1500 I've got on my Kindle is far better written.

I don't make those criticisms as an author. I've been a reader far longer, and read far more than I've written. I speak strictly as a reader. I wondered if I was being too harsh, so I checked out reviews on Goodreads, and immediately found three which mentioned the same problems almost word for word.

It could almost make me wonder why those of us who have worked hard for years to hone our craft need have bothered. LOL


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Feb 9, 2021)

It all depends on your expectations. If you're under the delusion that you will be a great writer, an established writer, a well paid writer, then I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment and ultimately failure. That's not to say it can't happen, of course it can, but will it happen to you? Unlikely. 

If you set your own goals and only see yourself as competition, you'll improve and be happy with that improvement. If you live your life comparatively, you'll always be unhappy. That goes for anything in life.  

Writing isn't just about putting words down on paper, it's about seeing the world in a completely different way, it's about finding the most mundane things fascinating, it's about becoming articulate enough to express that. If that's ALL writing brings you, it's enough. Be grateful for it. 

Now back to trying to become a half decent hack.


----------



## Foxee (Feb 9, 2021)

vranger said:


> Then we get to the other side of the question ... a good reader.  Yesterday in a Facebook group centered around an excellent author, I came across a recommendation for a nine-book sci fi series. I read as much of Book One's Amazon sample as I could stomach. The style was entirely juvenile, the story was trite, and every bit of dialogue was cliché. It was filled with numerous typos and dollops of bad grammar. I wondered if the author had improved as he went, so I started the sample of Book Nine. Same problems. Yet a reader who KNOWS what good writing is recommended it. AND, the books didn't have a high sales rank, but I've seen far worse. The worst book out of 1500 I've got on my Kindle is far better written.


That really is the other side, the lens through which people read. I didn't read nearly as critically when I was younger as I do now. For example, when I've taken advice not to shove my MC in front of a mirror so that I can describe the character's appearance I notice when a published author does it.

Warning: Rant ahead: 
Right now I'm reading a trilogy (or trying to) that is by an author that I like even if he wouldn't make it to my top favorites. I think this is his earliest published stuff and though the story is still pulling me along I have considered returning it to the library multiple times. 


There are weird verb choices ("He mounted the wooden steps and bounded up the flight." Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this is suspect.)
strange adverbs that don't quite fit
unsettling descriptions that I don't think were intended to be unsettling
And the most irritating of all the incessant GRINNING of his characters. Holy lord, there's so much smiling, grinning, stubborn grins that will not leave faces, grinning at times that people wouldn't grin, smiling for no reason other than he didn't know what to do with the character's face that this reason alone has me quickly falling out of whether the MC will get away with the bank heist or not. (I just created a thread with an article on fixing the grinning bobblehead character)

Yet, someone published this. People have read it. So far I'm still reading it though I don't know how much further I'll get. The author's work has gotten better over time though he can still rip out the occasional oddity.

So he's a 'writer' and more successful than I have been so far.



> It could almost make me wonder why those of us to have worked hard for years to hone our craft need have bothered. LOL


That.

But in the end I have to run my own 'am I a writer' past my own internal truth-detector.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 9, 2021)

Then there is the story, the writing can be grammatical, spelling good, all of that, and the story be so simple and 'copycat' it doesn't seem worth reading to me. That really doesn't seem to matter to some people, in fact they seem to like something completely predictable. Are these the people who grew up reading stuff like Enid Blyton? Whole series of books that are so repetitious that comedians 'remake' them with their 'wizard feasts with lashings of ginger beer' and 'mysterious strangers creeping about' that happen time and again. Do they grow up to go on to read the same sort of unimaginative, uninspiring tat? Does it make them feel safe and comfortable?
Why do you bother honing your craft, vranger? Because making money is not your sole aim, if you were not interested in creating anything original you would do better to become a bookmaker than a book writer.

As people have said, depends what you mean by 'a writer'. Oh, and the illiterate can't be writers by definition.


----------



## VRanger (Feb 9, 2021)

Foxee said:


> That really is the other side, the lens through which people read. I didn't read nearly as critically when I was younger as I do now.



When I was a kid I used to sell greeting cards and novelties door to door, and had a couple of sales jobs in college to make ends meet. The college sales jobs came with formal training. Therefore, any time a salesman sits before me, I spend more time analyzing his pitch and being amused at his "closes" than paying attention to what he says. I've long before made up my mind whether I'm going to buy his product or not, and if there hadn't been an excellent chance I wanted it, I wouldn't be letting him waste my time.

Now I find myself doing the same thing as a reader. I recognize both good and bad elements of the writing with an author's eye the same way I recognize parts of a pitch with my salesman's ear. I'm sure it's the same with other pursuits. I can look at a house and see the good points, which is why for the last two times we were looking at homes to buy, I prevailed on my close friend (a residential contractor) to also go through them. He arrived early at one property I was interested in, and gave it a thumbs down as soon as my wife and I drove up. Foundation problems, plus a low area of the property likely to flood.

The ability to critique other work benefits my own writing, as it fixes both good and bad elements in my attention, the easier to recognize in my own words. However, I can no longer read _anything _with the same casual experience I used to find in pure entertainment. While I might consider that a distraction while reading, I now appreciate excellent writing all the more.


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 9, 2021)

Funny to see this thread again. I must have read some turgid old text that day...


----------



## VRanger (Feb 9, 2021)

Olly Buckle said:


> Then there is the story, the writing can be grammatical, spelling good, all of that, and the story be so simple and 'copycat' it doesn't seem worth reading to me. That really doesn't seem to matter to some people, in fact they seem to like something completely predictable. Are these the people who grew up reading stuff like Enid Blyton? Whole series of books that are so repetitious that comedians 'remake' them with their 'wizard feasts with lashings of ginger beer' and 'mysterious strangers creeping about' that happen time and again. Do they grow up to go on to read the same sort of unimaginative, uninspiring tat? Does it make them feel safe and comfortable?
> Why do you bother honing your craft, vranger? Because making money is not your sole aim, if you were not interested in creating anything original you would do better to become a bookmaker than a book writer.
> 
> As people have said, depends what you mean by 'a writer'. Oh, and the illiterate can't be writers by definition.



Yes, and thus my mention that the technical side only lays the groundwork for the additional skill needed to create a "good tale well told". The first without the second leads to stories for which you can find no criticism other than boredom.

Making money isn't an aim at all. No matter how many (or few) read my books, if those who do enjoy them, that's the payoff. I started my career writing computer software, then wrote fiction for a career for a while, then back into software. My wife had a great career as a business analyst for a series of banks. She stayed at the same place but the banks kept getting swallowed up. LOL So we're comfortable enough, and I've haven't looked at my novels as as revenue stream. However, should I ever obtain the rights to publish the novel I wrote last spring, that could change. Still working on that, but it's slow going.

And yes, I study and edit--and will always do so--because when I publish, I want what I publish to be polished and interesting.


----------



## JBF (Feb 9, 2021)

TheMightyAz said:


> Now back to trying to become a half decent hack.



If we're all honest with ourselves, being a hack is where it's at.


----------



## clark (Feb 9, 2021)

The older I get, the more I value simplicity (my detractors might say, no, the more I am incapable of dealing with complexity . . . but why would I listen to my detractors?). I would say someone who writes pretty much every day, who writes in some kind of form that others can read, who actively positions their work in some kind of media so that others can read it , who does all this _more than he/she does anything else, _and who'--when asked--immediately says "I'm a writer" and feels comfortable so describing him/herself. . . is  a 'writer'.


----------



## indianroads (Feb 9, 2021)

I'm pretty sure that everyone here recognizes that writing is work and should be taken seriously. It takes a lot of discipline and dedication to hone our craft, which is easy to come by if we enjoy what we do. If you do the work, you're a writer.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 9, 2021)

I think that for every minute somebody spends meditating upon the fascinating yet bottomless subject of 'Can Anyone Be A Writer?' they ought be punished with a solid ten hours spent working on their manuscript with no coffee, pee or porn breaks. That will answer the question soon enough.


----------



## Llyralen (Feb 9, 2021)

I haven’t read the replies yet except for luckyscars’ (above) but has anyone brought up the movie _Ratatouille_ yet?   Multiple times?  Good.


----------



## clark (Feb 9, 2021)

Now, if you want to have some fun at a gathering when someone says, "what do you do?" reply--as I did only a few times--"I'm a poet." Immediately, the other party says, "Oh yeah! I wrote some poetry when I was a kid." or "my Mom used to write poetry. She has drawers full of it!" or "Oh! I write poetry in the garden! Let me get some for you" . . . and as she bustles off, . . I bustle off for the car at warp speed. Many people who do NOT write, put themselves at the same level as a writer simply because they can do it. The language is our shared platform. We all use it, therefore we can all lay claim to it.


----------



## EternalGreen (Feb 9, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> I think that for every minute somebody spends meditating upon the fascinating yet bottomless subject of 'Can Anyone Be A Writer?' they ought be punished with a solid ten hours spent working on their manuscript with no coffee, pee or porn breaks. That will answer the question soon enough.



Good advice.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Feb 9, 2021)

I will anger some people with this, but I have never subscribed to the tenet that anyone who writes is a writer.
I always felt it set the bar embarrassingly low. 


I have also always felt there was a distinct difference between a self published author and an Indie author. One dabbles, the other has made a professional commitment.


----------



## VRanger (Feb 9, 2021)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I will anger some people with this, but I have never subscribed to the tenet that anyone who writes is a writer.
> I always felt it set the bar embarrassingly low.
> 
> 
> I have also always felt there was a distinct difference between a self published author and an Indie author. One dabbles, the other has made a professional commitment.



You're correct at the top, and off base at the bottom. There is a growing population of self-published authors who are outstanding writers. They're not the majority, but you can't dismiss them with a shallow statement like that which indiscriminately groups them in with the hacks.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Feb 9, 2021)

An Indie writer is someone who has the skills to do it all: write, cover design, web site, marketing, editing...
SelfPubs tend to be tourists in the industry.

But most Indies started out as SelfPubs.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Feb 9, 2021)

clark said:


> Now, if you want to have some fun at a gathering when someone says, "what do you do?" reply--as I did only a few times--"I'm a poet." Immediately, the other party says, "Oh yeah! I wrote some poetry when I was a kid." or "my Mom used to write poetry. She has drawers full of it!" or "Oh! I write poetry in the garden! Let me get some for you" . . . and as she bustles off, . . I bustle off for the car at warp speed. Many people who do NOT write, put themselves at the same level as a writer simply because they can do it. The language is our shared platform. We all use it, therefore we can all lay claim to it.



I make a destruction though. For me someone who's a writer is simply someone who writes. There has to be a little more to it than that, such as a consistency and at least some attempt to 'sell a journey' and entertain, but essentially a writer is just someone who writes. On the other hand I do not and will not call myself an Author until I've at least had some success in publication.

Writer: Anyone with a will to tell a story and entertain
Author: Someone who has been published. (and I don't just mean short stories/poems here and there. Myself included)


----------



## VRanger (Feb 9, 2021)

Ralph Rotten said:


> An Indie writer is someone who has the skills to do it all: write, cover design, web site, marketing, editing...
> SelfPubs tend to be tourists in the industry.
> 
> But most Indies started out as SelfPubs.



I think you're behind the times on the state of the art. Serious self-pubs have nice web sites, contract out cover art, hire editors, and do what marketing they can. There are many who take it seriously and put out a professional product.

Are they likely to sell as many books? Nope. Are there dozens of hacks for every quality self-pub. Yep. But the blanket statement you made just isn't accurate. A lot of them sell as well as an indy house can, and they haven't assigned contractual rights to an outfit that may suddenly go dormant. There are some real horror stories out there from that little pitfall.

I'll give you some examples of self-pubs with professional product:
* Paul Draker. The guy was never able to crack the attention of an agent or a publisher. He wrote two tech thrillers and planned a third, but I believe he gave up before he finished the third. Yet the two he published are as good as any thriller I've ever read, edited as well as any NY house, and nothing wrong with the covers. His facebook page is dotted with requests for him to finish a third novel, including one from me. 
* Joanna Carson. Any publisher smart enough to "discover" and promote her would sell a LOT of product. She's clever and funny in a popular field (para-normal romance). 
* Breanna Puttroff. She writes beautiful YA fantasy with professional quality on the cover and on the page. By all accounts, Breanna sells decent volume, and has for ten years.

These are just a few I've personally stumbled across.


----------



## SueC (Feb 9, 2021)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I will anger some people with this, but I have never subscribed to the tenet that anyone who writes is a writer.
> I always felt it set the bar embarrassingly low.



I agree, except what do you call someone who writes then? I mean, there's really no qualifiers in the word. The dictionary says:

Writer:  noun. a person engaged in writing books, articles, stories, etc., especially as an occupation or profession; an author or journalist. a clerk, scribe, or the like. ... *a person who writes or is able to write*: a *writer* in script

I mean, even if you write poorly, if you think of yourself as a writer, how else are you going to describe what you do? The other day, I handed a friend who had come over to watch the Super Bowl a book I had written. "Oh!" she said. "You're a writer." To be honest, I have never had anyone say that to me, even though I consider myself a writer. I usually say, "I write fiction." It took me a really long time to see myself as a writer, even though I have been writing forever. I see the word as a description of someone with recognizable talent, but I didn't see myself as a writer until I had published a book. But I can see I was one long before that. Perhaps now I am an author, since it seems that anyone can be a writer, or so says the definition. If the question was - can anyone be an author - now, that would be a different discussion! LOL.

Nice to see you, Ralph! Been ages.


----------



## clark (Feb 10, 2021)

So truly, O Best Beloved, how many Angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? A person who writes is a writer. That is literally correct. There is correctness, even validity in tautologies. It would also be correct to say he is a cook, a father, a lover, a woodchopper, a masturbater, and a golfer . . , because he DOES those things too. But in all those examples we are playing with the fragility of words, not functionality. Wittgenstein, I am told, liked walking. So if two people were chatting about how the locals loved to walk in a particular area, and one of them looked down the path and saw W. and said, "there's a walker right there," that statement would stand the tests of accuracy, validity, and within that space and time, it would be True. When he got closer, that same person could well say, "Oh, it's Ludwig. He's a philosopher" . . . and EVEN THOUGH HE CONTINUED WALKING TOWARDS THEM, it would be functionally inaccurate if not downright stoopid, to say "no, he's not a philosopher, he's a walker". Do we not describe a person in terms of their _primary a_ctivity, ,  the activity for which they are best known? Aristotle put in a  lot of miles walking around the Lyceum, but no one would say Aristotle was a walker who did a lot of philosophizing, or that WCW was a doctor who did some writing or that Wallace Stevens was an insurance salesman who did  some writing. 

Carrying this forward to members of this forum: if writing is your passion and writing is what you do more than anything else, and it is your plan to write 14 hours a day when you retire in 10 months, you're a writer. I think there are three operative words/phrases  in assigning the designation 'writer': _passion, constant activity, known as. _Quality and publications have nothing to do with it. A lot of critics argue that most of Bukowski is mediocre schlock, but in his off-time when he worked for the post office and every waking moment after he quit, writing was ALL he did. He was a writer.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 10, 2021)

Not sure about that Clark, we might say of an infant 'He was a walker at six months', but for an adult we would reserve 'A walker' for someone who is out on the fells every weekend, not for someone who is merely ambulant. Isn't there a similar differentiation between scrivener and writer, literate and reader?


----------



## clark (Feb 10, 2021)

Yes, of course Olly. All depends how you set up the proposition at the start, eh? You skilfully accepted the width and length of the field, but moved the goalposts when everybody was out of the stands at halftime getting hot dogs and beer. BUT you still have to maneuver your way around that field with some more detailed plays . . . and no fair trying to sub that round ball from your side of the pond for our octagonal one over here . . . :scratch:.


----------



## ehbowen (Feb 10, 2021)

Llyralen said:


> I haven’t read the replies yet except for luckyscars’ (above) but has anyone brought up the movie _Ratatouille_ yet?   Multiple times?  Good.



I had the exact same thought the moment I first saw the question, so I searched the thread to see if anyone had brought the subject up. Search said, only you. So I'll post the relevant quote:



> *Anton Ego:*[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.



https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ratatouille/quotes/


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 10, 2021)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I will anger some people with this, but I have never subscribed to the tenet that anyone who writes is a writer.
> I always felt it set the bar embarrassingly low. I have also always felt there was a distinct difference between a self published author and an Indie author. One dabbles, the other has made a professional commitment. An Indie writer is someone who has the skills to do it all: write, cover design, web site, marketing, editing...
> SelfPubs tend to be tourists in the industry.
> 
> But most Indies started out as SelfPubs.



This is fine for a personal, but it's obviously not sustainable beyond an "in my opinion frosted flakes are corn flakes for people who cannot handle the truth" type of hot take. Not least because it falls foul of the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

There is a distinction already between self-published author and Indie author and that distinction exists in one being called a 'self published author' and the other an 'Indie author'. It's up to people how they want to approach those two different nomenclatures, or if it's even something that's important to most readers. 

I doubt it is important. I feel like, for the most part, the only people who probably care about this difference are the writers themselves. It seems to me that a lot of 'non-traditionally published authors' get very defensive about any criticism leveled at the quality and quantity of 'non-traditional published books' and want there to be some sort of categorization: 'This over here is a crock of wannabe shit...and this over here is the good stuff. My work is obviously the good stuff, because I'm a serious writer." 

That desire is obviously understandable. Unfortunately, as a distinction it is not entirely possible because there is _no objective way_ to distinguish between self-published books whose author (however unserious about writing they may be) nonetheless paid a lot of good money to 'appear real' and a book by an Indie author that 'is real'. There's just no way. Any otherwise unknown millionaire can be a bestselling novelist simply by paying their way and it would take far more effort than most readers are going to expend to tell the difference. It may not even be a difference reflected in actual writing quality. As irritating as it is, some 'tourists' are actually good writers and some 'non-tourists' aren't.



Olly Buckle said:


> Not sure about that Clark, we might say of an infant 'He was a walker at six months', but for an adult we would reserve 'A walker' for someone who is out on the fells every weekend, not for someone who is merely ambulant. Isn't there a similar differentiation between scrivener and writer, literate and reader?



Yes, context. It is entirely reasonable to say the majority of the developed/semi-developing world is inhabited by 'writers' (somebody who can write) and yet not necessarily wonder why 'The Writer's Digest' is not the #1 Bestselling Magazine: _Why aren't all these billions of writers in the world buying this magazine that is MADE for writers? _The answer to that riddle is that words can mean multiple things, occasionally even to the point of confusion. 

Nobody hears their friend say "I'm going to fly to Belize" and imagines that 'flight' as consisting of flapped wings and feathers just as nobody hears about the migratory 'flights' of swallows and imagines these little birds boarding a Boeing. That's silly.

Yet both are 'flying'. Both are 'in flight' and both humans and birds can be described, accurately, as 'animals in flight' (or perhaps even 'flight risks') with any ensuing disagreement based not on whether the statements are valid but whether the interpretation is what was intended. But the interpretation is not the fault of the word itself. It is a design limitation, much like the word 'set' has 430 definitions and presumably occasionally it's not exactly clear which of those we mean either? 

There probably should be a word to distinguish between 'real writers who write real books' and 'people who can write their name and address on an envelope'...and there is! That word is 'author'. 

Reading these posts, it seems like what is actually being asked here is for a _third _word to exist. One specifically to describe a writer who is _really good at writing, promise! _yet somehow has not yet figured out how to become _an author_?

 I don't personally see that such a distinction is necessary. I don't think people who write 'seriously' yet not productively or with sufficient skill to be called an author deserve a special title that separates them from guy-who-can-write-his-name. I think the language is already modified sufficiently to coddle the emotions and pride of people. If you think that too many talentless bums get called 'writers', then work sufficiently hard that you're no longer merely 'a writer' but also 'an author'...or perhaps even 'a bestselling author'. Until then, tolerate being in the same cart as the bums, the way 'Indie authors' tolerate being in the same cart as 'self-published authors'.


----------



## clark (Feb 10, 2021)

This is lots of fun and it showcases that we're all good writers (now isn't that surprising--here we are in a writers' forum and we're all good writers). Even good thinkers, even skilled at patterns of argument, even acerbic of wit, even highly organized in presenting what we have to say. And more. I have learned some stuff and perhaps contributed a scrap or two, which is what I hope to gain and to offer in all these exchanges. I now feel, however, that the thread is perilously close to :deadhorse:which is just another way of saying I am bereft of further significant input, so I'll leave and see you all in another thread. Thanks to everyone.


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 10, 2021)

clark said:


> This is lots of fun and it showcases that we're all good writers (now isn't that surprising--here we are in a writers' forum and we're all good writers). Even good thinkers, even skilled at patterns of argument, even acerbic of wit, even highly organized in presenting what we have to say. And more. I have learned some stuff and perhaps contributed a scrap or two, which is what I hope to gain and to offer in all these exchanges. I now feel, however, that the thread is perilously close to :deadhorse:which is just another way of saying I am bereft of further significant input, so I'll leave and see you all in another thread. Thanks to everyone.





"It wouldn't stay dead!" - Anon.

See you all in a couple of years when I stop feeling like a writer again and need to shore up my identity


----------



## Foxee (Feb 10, 2021)

bdcharles said:


> "It wouldn't stay dead!" - Anon.
> 
> See you all in a couple of years when I stop feeling like a writer again and need to shore up my identity


....and until then....!


----------

