Published authors and percentage income

[Anne Lyle]

You know that Angry Robot are launching a crime imprint? They don't have an editor in place yet, so they're not accepting submissions, but who knows...?

 

[Gary Compton]

For someone like me who is a discovery writer, that initial draft has to be followed by extensive revision, whereas someone else might precede their draft with extensive outlining - either way, start to finish it takes a lot longer than it seems.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

You know that Angry Robot are launching a crime imprint? They don't have an editor in place yet, so they're not accepting submissions, but who knows...?

ooh no I didn't - maybe my detectives will find a home lol Just wonder if they want it to be really dark though ? Well it's a few months away from finished.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this.

I generally bin first drafts and rewrite them, because I see a better order to the story. Like with one draft I'll meet Merlin via ghosts in the fourth chapter. To help my character find a time travel machine - he starts banging on the wall of my MCs bedroom in chapter two in the next draft.

The first draft is readable and isn't bad, but I just love the way the story gains depth with a rewrite.

 

[Gary Compton]

I always treat my first draft as notes. I usually end up changing loads of it.

 

[Boneman]

Always worth hanging on to first drafts, so when you're incredibly famous, and need a bit more cash, you can sell it as a 'how you shouldn't write' kind of thing. I'd love to see some first drafts of books I've read, just to see how much they do change.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I binned the collection of Pukka Pads that made up my first one It was terrible read like a 70s porn movie without the sex.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Somewhere, buried in my garage, is my first attempt from when i was 16, in lovely neat handwriting - before I started scribbling instead...

 

[Anne Lyle]

Always worth hanging on to first drafts, so when you're incredibly famous, and need a bit more cash, you can sell it as a 'how you shouldn't write' kind of thing. I'd love to see some first drafts of books I've read, just to see how much they do change.

Ye gods, no. I'd rather the world didn't see my terrible juvenilia. I have a box of notebooks that I can't quite bring myself to throw out, but I hope no-one ever reads them...

 

[Gary Compton]

I've got Nazis in my book and in the first draft I had them saying things like,

'Vill everybody please pay attention. Ve vill not tolerate any disobedience or you vill be shot.'

When John Jarrold edited my book for the first time he nearly had a coronary. He said it was like a comic.

I've still got all my drafts.

 

[Boneman]

And years later, when your books are studied in Creative Writing classes, imagine how valuable those notepads/1st Drafts/scribblings will be to a scholar!!

 

[AnyaKimlin]

And years later, when your books are studied in Creative Writing classes, imagine how valuable those notepads/1st Drafts/scribblings will be to a scholar!!

That is why I know I took the right decision they now being far more useful into whatever they were recycled into

 

[Gary Compton]

And years later, when your books are studied in Creative Writing classes, imagine how valuable those notepads/1st Drafts/scribblings will be to a scholar!!

Haha, maybe I could flog'em on Ebay; along with me book of chat up lines. Most of which, went down like the Hindenburgh

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi Greg,

When is a writer a writer? I'm afraid it is as simple as when he writes.

The problem with this argument - and I accept it is a popular one - is twofold. Firstly, it isn't how people who aren't trying to write books would define the term- the cultural baggage argument that some of us have been propounding.

Secondly, it renders the term "writer" so vague as to be virtually meaningless. If I sit down and scrawl once upon a time on the back of a shopping list, put my pen down and go to the pub, can I really in all conscience tell my pals at the bar that I am now a writer?

There is a tendency to allow a greater latitude for what one might call "artistic aspirations". You talk about professional qualifications and I agree with you in part, but plenty of jobs require no professional qualifications and yet the titles which pertain to them cannot be said to be something which people can bestow upon themselves when the mood takes them. Milkman. Plasterer. Manager. Farmer. Advertising Executive. Footballer. Literary Agent.

The sad, bald truth (as amply evidenced by most self published work) is that many people who like to term themselves writers produce semi-literate, self indulgent, derivative crap. They are the equivalent of a chap who calls himself a farmer just because he owns a pair of wellingtons and can tell the difference between a sheep and a cow.

However, whilst we would all snigger at the non-farmer for his arrogance, we allow the non-writer to take on the mantle of author for no better reason that they are doing something which proper writers also have to do - putting words on a page. But being a writer is far, far more than just putting words on a page. The experiences of serious self-publishers such as Scarfy or serious proposed self publishers such as Gary underline the distinction.

I can't remember who said it, but there is a splendid quote in which someone said of a book - "this isn't writing - it's typing."

I'd ask the question, was JK a writer while she was sitting in that coffee shop writing her first HP books, long before they were published?

Excellent question. I'd say she was an aspiring writer. The "aspiring" qualifies the "writer" without taking anything away from her abilities. It also deals with your other scenarios, methinks.

But there's no body of authors sitting out there passing judgement on who is or isn't a writer, and nor should there be.

But there is a body of professionals (publishers, editors, agents etc) who pass de facto judgment on who is or isn't good enough to make the grade.

Regards,

Peter

 

[JDP]

Hi Peter,

Your assumption seems to rely on the fact that if someone is not writing as a profession then they are not entitled to describe themselves as a writer. I think there's a difference between someone who might describe their job as a writer to someone who might describe themselves as a writer.

I might describe myself as a cyclist. That doesn't mean I get paid for it, or that you'll likely see me in le Tour de France anytime soon. I might describe myself as a guitarist, but I won't be playing the O2. Similarly, someone who regularly trains and plays football might describe themselves as a footballer; not, perhaps, when asked what their job is (unless they are indeed a professional footballer), but perhaps when asked about themselves. The relevance is in the context.

Firstly, it isn't how people who aren't trying to write books would define the term.

The majority of people outside academia might assume that if you describe yourself as 'doctor', then you must be a medical doctor...

I don't think there's a defined line as to who's a writer and who isn't. Probably somewhere between Peter's shopping list example and someone who devotedly plans, plots, drafts and edits written works. I don't think it really matters. It's all subjective so trying to agree a universal definition is likely to be fruitless - though we could always trust the infallible font of human knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writer

 

[AnyaKimlin]

For me self publishing would be the option to allow freedom to put books out at my own pace, in the genre that took my fancy and allow me complete freedom to tell the stories I want to write.

Personally though I think of myself as a storyteller using writing as a useful medium. I also enjoy oral stories.

As a reader I now see self published as a positive thing. Using Amazon I can check the first few pages of a lot of books and I have found some really good innovative stories. Moriah Jovan is amazing and Mike Devlin's Smith is fun.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I don't think there's a defined line as to who's a writer and who isn't.

You can always tell an author because they never give up.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi JDP,

Your assumption seems to rely on the fact that if someone is not writing as a profession then they are not entitled to describe themselves as a writer.

Not quite, although it does rely on there being some sort of consensus that a person is not misleading others by their use of the term.

I think there's a difference between someone who might describe their job as a writer to someone who might describe themselves as a writer.

Absolutely. My argument is that most folk would regard "a writer" as being someone who writes professionally - or at least earns their living from it without relying on the DWP. This is why qualifiers such as "aspiring" or "hobby" are important.

I might describe myself as a cyclist. That doesn't mean I get paid for it, or that you'll likely see me in le Tour de France anytime soon. I might describe myself as a guitarist, but I won't be playing the O2.

Yes, but as discussed above, that is largely because "cyclist" is predominantly used to describe the hobby and not the profession. A professional cyclist would call themselves just that - a professional cyclist.

Similarly, someone who regularly trains and plays football might describe themselves as a footballer; not, perhaps, when asked what their job is (unless they are indeed a professional footballer), but perhaps when asked about themselves. The relevance is in the context.

Precisely my point. And to use the term "writer" without any qualifiers has a very specific, widely understood context which might not be an appropriate way of genuinely describing the person using the term.

The majority of people outside academia might assume that if you describe yourself as 'doctor', then you must be a medical doctor...

They might, but a Dr of Jane Austen is unlikely to breeze into a room and start peforming surgery on people with the bread knife. They aren't holding themselves out (impliedy or expressly) as medical doctors - it just so happens that term has more than one meaning.

Regards,

Peter

 

[JDP]

They aren't holding themselves out (impliedy or expressly) as medical doctors - it just so happens that term has more than one meaning.

For me, this phrase is interchangeable with (again, my emphasis):

They aren't holding themselves out (impliedy or expressly) as professional writers - it just so happens that term has more than one meaning.

However, I concede that your definition of the term might be more popular than my own.

 

[Anne Lyle]

FWIW, John Scalzi has some pretty clear definitions

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/01/28/writer-professional-good/

 

[Peter Graham]

For me, this phrase is interchangeable with (again, my emphasis):

However, I concede that your definition of the term might be more popular than my own.

Or perhaps not! Anne's link to Scalzi has me down as a snob for the second time in this thread! I shall respond in type to friend Scalzi by saying that anyone who puts the bar so low probably subscribes to the drippy nonsense of cultural relativism, in which case the fellow should be boiled in lead at the first opportunity.

Joking aside, for me it all comes down to what most folk would understand by the term "writer". If I'm right, most folk who call themselves writers aren't. If I'm wrong and "writer" carries no connotations of quality or professionalism in the mind of the average person, then so be it. I don't see much snobbishness in that.

Regards,

Peter