Re: Interesting…

But in this case, there are far bigger fish to fry.

Now why didn’t I think of that? So succinct. So accurate. So…

Re: Interesting…

My life is testimony that I am not. But in this case, there are far bigger fish to fry.

Re: Interesting … umm…

…other people dictate how you may define yourself…

I’m not sure if that was what I was saying? I define myself as a writer when I write, because that’s what I do – write. I’m writing stories that interest and engage me – I have to, otherwise I would be bored and uninterested. I also hope that if go back to it, draft, draft, and draft again (taking in comments and criticisms from those that I allow to read it in unfinished form) that it will become the best that it can be, and that someone will therefore like it enough to publish it and make it available to many more people.

However, that last act of making it available to many more people isn’t what defines me as a writer. It’s what might define me as published author, but not me, as what I am.

Re: Interesting…

Are you okay with that idea, that other people dictate how you may define yourself?

And…

it doesn’t imply that you think you are either. I think the majority of “do-ers” just get on and do, whilst those that “don’t” tend to stand back and carp, and it is *they* who say “look at them, who do they think they are?…*famous person from history*??!?” when really all the doer wants to do is “do”, and share it with others.

Hmnn, yes… I am a writer because I write. I hope that I might be (or become) a good enough writer that others will want to read and enjoy my work and derive pleasure from it.

In this there isn’t really a distinction between published and unpublished accept that with the former more people can enjoy it (and someone obviously liked it enough to spend some money making it available to more people).

Which is more or less what my first response in the original email thread: that being an artist/writer is in the doing, but that by just doing (in no way) does not make you a Picasso or Shakespeare (or in the case of Science and Scientists) an Einsteinn…

Perhaps what I would say is that it’s fine for them to think the first part, but not the second which is a completely different issue.

Re: Interesting…

…that those who write see a distinction between published and unpublished?

Only insofaras other people dictate how you may define yourself in accordance with whether you are published or not. If you appreciate what I mean when I say I am a writer, then I am a writer. If not, then I am merely someone who puts a couple of hours a day into writing.

Re: Interesting…

Point of interest – I have had a CD of my music published, and I’ve gigged, but I NEVER called myself a musician……… I guess that wasn’t my end-event.

Interesting…

…that those who write see a distinction between published and unpublished? I mean, in music you are a musician or not a musician, regardless of whether you play a concert or have a record out right? There appears to be no term for what one is after the “end-event”. Same with art – one paints, one is a painter, and by default an artist.

Your observer who said “…any fool could slap a bit of paint on a canvas and think of themselves as an artist, or any fool could scrawl out a few paragraphs and think of themselves as a writer, and immediately consider themselves on par with picasso or shakespeare” sounds a bit frustrated and too concerned with comparing people to figures from history.

What’s important is that there really is room for everyone to do their thing, whether we think it’s bad or good, tedious or excellent. That’s not to say that I don’t encounter a lot of creativity that makes me just think “Why?!?” in total disbelief, but I’d never question anyone’s right to call themselves what they want or believe it, since it’s hardly going to stop me from doing anything, and if it makes them feel better about what they do then *it’s a good thing*.

Interestingly dictionary.com has some interesting observations on the difference between “author” and “write” as verbs…

Yes, better to say you’re a writer and have people assume (hopefully wrongly) that you’re unpublished. It says everything.

I would not, for example, presume to call myself an author until I was published. That would be the height of arrogance.

I would agree with you there. When I was about to start this journal and was considering my *username* I did idly think about the_author, but dismissed it almost immediately (at the time I wasn’t sure why) because it just didn’t feel right. Now that you mention it, I think it was probably because at some subconscious level I did see it as, if not arrogant then, pretentous.

(in fact, I think the only time I ever have used the term “the author” about myself has been either in jest, or when I wrote a *column* (and I use the term loosely) for the sixth form magazine and used a picture of a guy strung up in a noose as my bi-line!)

Upon thinking about it, I don’t think I would use the terms *novelist* or *authors* to describe me even when I am published – *writer* seems to suit me just fine, and it somehow encapsulates all the passion and the art that I put into my writing just fine!

Since then, whenever I listened to music, classical, contemporary or anything else, I found I was judging it for technique, completely missing the meaning whether the skill was lacking or not – but especially when the skill was lacking.

Only recently did I start seeing the art (or lack of it) in music and was able to see past the technique.

I wonder if what your friend is really complaining about are the people who think they have technique or skill, but have no soul and no art, and yet call themselves artists?

I could say that I would feel justified in calling myself a writer when I’m earning money from it, or have won some kind of competition, but really there’s more to it than that. You have to have the passion as well. You have to not care about external validation, even as you seek it, because you’re doing art for yourself.

And to be honest I’d say that someone who is ‘unpublished’ but has the passion has more claim on the words ‘artist/musician/writer’ than those who do their art professionally, but who have nothing of their own to say and no emotion to express.

For myself, I say I am a writer, because I write, every day, and it is the most important thing I do. We have another word for novel writers who get paid – authors – so perhaps the same issue does not apply so much to writers as it does to musicians and artists. I would not, for example, presume to call myself an author until I was published. That would be the height of arrogance.