A question about the nature of what we do.

[Kaimani]

it seems to be the natural thing to ask what one 'does' after asking them their name. or at least not more than two or three quetions down the conversation. used to be i'd say 'well, among other things, i breath, eat, ****, walk, talk, and when the spirit moves me, find time to get laid'. but you can probably imagine the kind of conversations i had then. short, terse and, well, you get the picture.

 

I felt that to condense a whole human and all the experiences and '****' they come with to no more than the way they pay their bills had something of the pessimist in it. it was also another way of countering th inevitable 'so, where are you from 'originally'? before 'why did you choose england?' then 'you going back home soon?'

 

ok, anyway, where am i? right-if you don't already smoke weed don't start, it does this t-ok, my question.

 

when can one start to describe oneself as 'a writer'? is it when one gets published? and even then, what does one have to get in pint? a short story? a book? a poem? all of the above? and where? does a website count? or a 'letters to the editor' in a newspaper? or it has to be a tangible hardcopy of some repute? and does one have to have been paid for said work?

 

and is there a difference between a writer and an 'author'? if so what is that difference? or are the two one and the same therefore interchangable?

 

if one is 'human' just by virtue of eating, ****ting-whats with me and ****ting today?-breathing and what not(the blessed among us might add thinking, feeling, learning etc to this repetoire) those being the things that make the human then why does the same not apply to other things?

 

'writer' implies, at the base of it, that one 'writer' so could you not just be writer simply because you write without the baggage that comes with 'oh, have i read anything you've published' or 'oh, have you had anything published'?

 

ok, i suppose i'm biased.

[mikomi]

I don't know is it that important, i would think there is a large element of luck goes towards a novel being published it's not something i dwell on .

[Peacock Lady]

I don't know is it that important, i would think there is a large element of luck goes towards a novel being published it's not something i dwell on .

 

Luck goes into it, but not much.

 

Most books submitted are simply not publishable: they're badly written, have no market, have not been polished, are littered with spelling mistakes and typos, they're plagiaristic, they're libellous, or they're just plain boring.

 

Many books are submitted to the wrong publishers (fiction sent to text-book publishers, for example).

 

Many submissions don't follow guidelines (single line spacing, or printing on both sides of the page).

 

Perhaps 5% of submissions DON'T come into the above categories, and will be read, and considered, by whoever it is they're sent to. Which narrows the odds considerably. After that, it's down to how good a writer you are, and whether or not your work is considered publishable in today's market. There is some luck, but far less than it seems from the outside.

[mikomi]

Luck goes into it, but not much.

 

Most books submitted are simply not publishable: they're badly written, have no market, have not been polished, are littered with spelling mistakes and typos, they're plagiaristic, they're libellous, or they're just plain boring.

 

Many books are submitted to the wrong publishers (fiction sent to text-book publishers, for example).

 

Many submissions don't follow guidelines (single line spacing, or printing on both sides of the page).

 

Perhaps 5% of submissions DON'T come into the above categories, and will be read, and considered, by whoever it is they're sent to. Which narrows the odds considerably. After that, it's down to how good a writer you are, and whether or not your work is considered publishable in today's market. There is some luck, but far less than it seems from the outside.

 

That's what i was trying to say, but you put it more eloquently.

[Mantaspook]

That’s the funny thing about introducing yourself to strangers, it’s always “Name, Occupation etc.” – whenever someone asks me what I do for a living I usually smile and reply “As little as possible – how about you?”

 

To the question “When can you call yourself a writer?” my answer would be when the majority of your income comes from writing, until then you’re whatever you put on your CV under the title ‘occupation.’

 

Anyone who creates written work could be called a writer, although strictly speaking it could apply to anyone that writes creatively, whilst an author could be technically defined by the fact they write books, I think the two words are almost synonymous, that’s the great thing about language, we could say Stephen King writes a shopping list but it sounds strange if we say he’s the author of it.

 

Kaimani, whether you are published or not, famous or unknown, I wouldn’t worry too much about defining yourself to other people by an occupation, I remember reading a job applicants CV and seeing that he had written an unpublished novel - a colleague sneered “Hey, haven’t we all?” Personally, I would have left it out as it had nothing to do with the job he was applying for, other than implying a level of literacy, but that should have been obvious from his CV anyway.

 

Just to reiterate what Peacock lady said, you make your own luck, the editors are very busy people and if you don’t present the manuscript is a professional manner it gets thrown back on the slush pile very quickly, the odds of an editor spotting a superb handwritten thriller on pages torn from an exercise book are too long, (especially if you use crayons ) so make it easy for them by following the guidelines.

 

We’ll do more on the Writers Group about this soon, look out for a thread called “The Writers Toolbox.”

[Kaimani]

“As little as possible – how about you?” ha ha ha!!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

will do. it doesn't bother me much that you need to 'earn' being a 'writer'. in fact i think it shouldn't be any other way. just that, like all else in this day and age, it comes back to how much money you've made. or not. at the end of days they will have to say JK ROWLING is the greatest writer ever to have lived. followed by dan brown i guess. we would have to say yes. no wonder the martians have not made contact yet.

[seriessix]

Indeed, JK Rowling is the greatest writer and Van Gough was not an artist:)

[coyleys]

at the end of days they will have to say JK ROWLING is the greatest writer ever to have lived. followed by dan brown i guess. we would have to say yes.

 

In respect of earning capacity, probably so, if we are talking about their writing, J K Rowling I would agree, but although I’ve read all of Dan Browns and enjoyed them I certainly wouldn’t call him great.