I'll agree that author implies that you've written something and it's been made public.
I also rather like Teresa's distinction.
Peter, if you had written every day for a year or ten years on your masterwork, but never taken it to an agent or publisher or risked self publishing would you not be a writer?
No. I would be an aspiring writer or, as I would be more likely to say, a hobby writer. For me personally, it's "hobby" rather than "aspiring", as even if I were published, I would never expect to make enough loot from writing to be able to give up my day job and finance my bloated lifestyle.
Whether it's good or bad, would you not feel that you had earned the right purely by dint of your efforts to call yourself a writer?
See above. I wouldn't feel that I could use the unqualified term "writer" to describe myself until those in the trade whose views I respected felt that I was one - interestingly, it seems I may not be alone in this after all.
Your blue tack sculpture guy hasn't put in the hard yards, so I don't think he could legitimately call himself a sculptor.
This is already a shift from the "a writer is someone who writes" argument. We are now requiring "hard yards".
He could be sitting at home doing nothing when an art expert wanders by his house, see's his blue tack works and immediately wants to sell them.
Equally, he could be abducted by aliens or discover Gwynn ap Nudd, king of the fairies, living in his compost bin.
Suddenly, even though he has done nothing to warrant the title of sculptor he can be instantly elevated to that status by chance.
Indeed. Definitions are rarely perfect and we can all think of situations when someone might get approbation when they don't really deserve it. But that doesn't invalidate the definition in its entirety. As a general rule, I still maintain that the approval of the industry is the yardstick by which to judge whether one is a writer or just a typist.
So why should some of these guys be able to call themselves artists simply because their work is commercial, and others who may work far harder and spend far longer painting, not beable to?
Because life is unfair, as you say. It's also not an entirely fair comparison, as some modern art has become so...erm...conceptual that it has vanished entirely up its own backside and become little more than a clever, self-referential in-joke for a handful of pointless tools living in places like Hoxton. Writing has not suffered the same fate, largely because there is still a general feeling that expressing oneself clearly in proper sentences is a Good Thing. And, unlike putting up a shelf in Tate Modern, writing coherent and entertaining sentences requires no small measure of ability.
I think in the end it comes down to the diligence and effort and time that's put in that defines whether someone is a writer.
In part. I think it also comes down to whether someone is actually able to master writing - grammar, spelling, imagery, plot et al. But I still think that ultimately, the title of "writer" is one that is effectively bestowed by the industry, not by oneself.
Very best regards,
Peter
