I know writing's hard work and you've got to keep at it and at it, but when does a person know whether it's something they could do or not? Are there signs or indications?
I love to read, probably more than I love to write, but I also have stories I'd love to write, if I could pull it off. I'm not a veteran to writing, like some of you, but I am questioning if it's something I could or something I should do.
I struggle quite a bit when I write so is that a preindicator of inability or is that just because I need to learn more to write better?
Articulating is a big issue, something I mentioned earlier was a huge problem for me; lack of knowing which word to use or knowing that there's ANY word for what I want to express. I've noticed the vast wealth of vocabulary knowledge that OSC seems to have, along with other writers I admire.
I'm not so concerned about the ideas that I have but how I present them. Ideas come when I just start fiddling with a certain concept, expanding on that issue until it truly becomes workable. But ideas alone don't float the story, or it'd be hard to do it that way if it did. I'm familiar with taking two ideas and mashing them together to produce a story but that doesn't always work and the stories can tend to be flat.
Time is also another factor along with the means to write. I severely need a laptop so I can be able to type out my stories much faster than pen and paper. For the most part I've been limited to just writing down stories traditionally and that's a pain in the you know where, especially when your hand clenches up and refuses to write one more word. Plus, when my stories get bigger than when I started then it gets difficult to keep track of everything so I can keep in a coherent mess instead of a chaotic mess.
But that's my main concern, wondering whether I'm cut out for it or not. How do I know? What do I look for? Or maybe I just shouldn't think about that and just concentrate on learning to write better and just write instead of getting discouraged by the enormity of my lack of ability or the slowness in productivity.
[This message has been edited by autumnmuse (edited March 12, 2006).]
You know you are an author when someone offers to pay you for your writing.
They are not necessarily the same thing.
When you stop enjoying the process, take a break, and reevaluate.
I would like to recommend to you two books that I think will help you far more than anything than can be said in this forum. The first is by Stephen King - "On Writing." The other is a book by Ray Bradbury - "Zen in the Art of Writing." I think these two books will be of great help to you. Don't give up. Many writers have struggled, even great ones like James Joyce, to get their stories on paper.
If you find yourself writing anyway, despite having abandoned writing, you'll probably need to learn the mechanics and get good at it, because you're stuck with it. But try earnestly to give up first. Giving up is much easier, if you can pull it off.
Maybe it is because I do a lot of creative writing in my job that I can happily not write my own stuff for prolonged periods. That isn't good. But I always start again and I'm always 'in' my stories.
I think that's part of what makes someone a writer. You know (you know) you will never just give it away. You will keep writing, keep plugging, you may have fits and starts but you know (you know) you won't ever just drop it.
.I'd echo the other comments, too. They are all true. But even the most brilliant gifted writer struggles with conveying what is in their head to the page, and then back into the head of a reader without the message being garbled severely along the way. The only solution for that is practice.
So, struggling to put words on the page could be a mark of a person who will never be a successful writer. Or it could be the mark of Stephen King, who wrote at least five novels and trunked them before finding a publisher for Carrie.
There are two things that will tell you if you'll ever be an author, as opposed to simply a writer: 1. You keep writing. 2. Other people like what you write. If enough other people like it you'll get published and find a wide pool of readers.
"If you write, you are a writer. If you are not talented, you will not get published as often, or at all."
If you don't want to write, you're not a writer. But if you've got a burning desire to see your stories come alive--if the story grips you so hard that you have no choice but to become a slave to it--then without a doubt you are a writer.
For myself, I confine my definition of "writer" to writers who have had their writing published by print journals or publishers. I like the Science Fiction (and Fantasy) Writers of America (SFWA) guidelines for membership. You don't have to make a living as a full-time Science Fiction or Fantasy writer to join. You do, however, have to meet a minimum requirement of works published in accepted markets.
fileclerkIf you answer "I'm a writer", the American's assumption is you make your living
Nobody starts out knowing it all. I look back now on the first copies of my novel that I sent out, and am so very glad that my cover letter was bad enough I don't think the pages of the manuscript were even looked at.
If it's something you want to do you're a writer and you need to apply blood, sweat, and tears, to get to the level of writing ability you desire to be at.
If you're not willing to do the work at self improvement then perhaps you're not destined to write.
author n 1: one that originates or creates 2: one that writes or composes a literary work
writer n one that writes especially as a business or occupation: author
If you have written or composed any literary work, or created anything original, you are an author. If you write as a business or occupation, you are a writer and an author.
Whether you are cut out to be a writer/author is really a personal decision which no one else can make for you. Your writing being good or bad only determines whether or not your work will be published, not if you are or are not a writer.
[This message has been edited by Salimasis (edited March 13, 2006).]
First, it's nonsense that real writers are compulsive writers -- that if you can quit then you're not a writer. There are thousands of people who absolutely must write in a diary every day, but these people are not writers. And there are writers who do not write for extended periods of time for one reason or another. Harper Lee is a better writer than most, and just because she wrote only one novel doesn't diminish this fact.
Second, a REAL writer is someone who is determined to master the craft of writing from the most basic levels on up. They worry about words, sentences, paragraphs. They know their grammar and own grammar books and don't get on the web to ask grammar questions. They read with an eye to learn the craft frist, and for entertainment second. They take writing as seriously as a politican or a CEO takes his or her job. Real writers are concerned first with being good writers, with writing well, and with getting published second. This does not mean they don't want to get published, but, rather, that they won't lower their art for the sake of publication. And this certainly DOES NOT mean they don't write genre fiction or popular fiction, only that they seek to write the best kind of fiction they can write.
Third, as Richard Rhodes said, the is only one way to overcome the fear of writing -- by writing. See it as a balance. Every word you write tips the balance toward writing and away from fear. You might have to write 1,000,000 words before you feel a modicum of confidence, but if you are dedicated to becoming a writer then you'll eventually reach the 1,000,000-word mark.
Fourth, start small. Here's the advice Shelby Foote gave Walker Percy: "If you are serious about writing fiction you had better get to work. I honestly don't think it can be done without a background of four or five years of apprenticeship. Sit down with pen and paper and describe anything at all: do it again and again -- either an object or an action -- until you satisfy yourself. Then try telling a story that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Then tear it up and do it over, and over, and over. Then try another one, and another one, and another one. Finally you may begin to feel like tackling something with strength in it (I hope you won't have felt up to any such thing before this, for if you have, you'll have made a botch of it) . . . So much for the execution. I can't even begin to speak of conception -- it comes from God."
Fifth, obtain a copy of John Gardner's THE ART OF FICTION and read it as if it were sacred scripture.
[This message has been edited by Garp (edited March 13, 2006).]
But I liked Harlan Ellison's response to the question, which was that if you literally can't stop doing it, you're a writer. Otherwise, it's just a hobby.
Then again, Harlan is arguably not sane. Talented. But not sane.
And as someone who's written his million words of apprenticeship, and is only now starting to try and get work published... there is no substitute for practice. And there is nothing wrong with ignoring the rules of grammar when it suits you to do so - but you have to know what the rules are and why they're there, so you can decide when you can and should break them. Sentence fragments? Not necessarily a problem. And neither is starting a sentence with a conjunction...
quote:
Second, a REAL writer is someone who is determined to master the craft of writing from the most basic levels on up. They worry about words, sentences, paragraphs. They know their grammar and own grammar books and don't get on the web to ask grammar questions. They read with an eye to learn the craft frist, and for entertainment second. They take writing as seriously as a politican or a CEO takes his or her job. Real writers are concerned first with being good writers, with writing well, and with getting published second. This does not mean they don't want to get published, but, rather, that they won't lower their art for the sake of publication. And this certainly DOES NOT mean they don't write genre fiction or popular fiction, only that they seek to write the best kind of fiction they can write.
That is how I feel when I write, summed up. I would never be able to explain it as clearly as that
Constipatron: If you weren't a writer you wouldn't even ask that question.
)quote:First, it's nonsense that real writers are compulsive writers -- that if you can quit then you're not a writer. There are thousands of people who absolutely must write in a diary every day, but these people are not writers. And there are writers who do not write for extended periods of time for one reason or another. Harper Lee is a better writer than most, and just because she wrote only one novel doesn't diminish this fact.
Wow, so you're saying that a person who writes a diary every day still isn't a writer? What on earth does a person have to do? Just because someone doesn't write fiction, or poetry, or prose, or for the public does not mean that they are not a writer.
I do agree, though, about the flipside. You don't have to write all the time to be a writer. Almost all writers quit for periods of time for one reason or another. It may not make them an active writer, but it doesn't necessarily negate years of writing/
quote:
Second, a REAL writer is someone who is determined to master the craft of writing from the most basic levels on up. They worry about words, sentences, paragraphs. They know their grammar and own grammar books and don't get on the web to ask grammar questions. They read with an eye to learn the craft frist, and for entertainment second. They take writing as seriously as a politican or a CEO takes his or her job. Real writers are concerned first with being good writers, with writing well, and with getting published second. This does not mean they don't want to get published, but, rather, that they won't lower their art for the sake of publication. And this certainly DOES NOT mean they don't write genre fiction or popular fiction, only that they seek to write the best kind of fiction they can write.
Who said a real writer had to be any good at it? Or even want to be good at it? Some writers write for themselves, they write as part of their greater sense of imagination...they write for may reasons that do not all necessitate being good.
quote:
Third, as Richard Rhodes said, the is only one way to overcome the fear of writing -- by writing. See it as a balance. Every word you write tips the balance toward writing and away from fear. You might have to write 1,000,000 words before you feel a modicum of confidence, but if you are dedicated to becoming a writer then you'll eventually reach the 1,000,000-word mark.
I'm pretty sure you don't have to write any amount of words or wait any amount of time to be a writer. I've been a writer since I first put pen to paper and started telling stories...that was at the age of 8, and though I've wandered away from it the writing never left my soul. (Also, I assure you that at age 8 I was a terrible writer.)
quote:
Fourth, start small. Here's the advice Shelby Foote gave Walker Percy: "If you are serious about writing fiction you had better get to work. I honestly don't think it can be done without a background of four or five years of apprenticeship. Sit down with pen and paper and describe anything at all: do it again and again -- either an object or an action -- until you satisfy yourself. Then try telling a story that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Then tear it up and do it over, and over, and over. Then try another one, and another one, and another one. Finally you may begin to feel like tackling something with strength in it (I hope you won't have felt up to any such thing before this, for if you have, you'll have made a botch of it) . . . So much for the execution. I can't even begin to speak of conception -- it comes from God."
A writing apprenticeship..interesting idea.
Also, I think you misread what I said about writing 1,000,000 words. I didn't say you needed to write 1,000,000 words in order to call yourself a writer. What I did say is that it might take that long before you overcome the fear of writing.
Simply, my definition of a writer is a person who (a) hopes to one day be read, and strives for this hope by (b) pursuring mastery over the craft of writing. If you don't strive for both, you're not a writer. And if strive for "a" but not "b", or "b" but not "a" . . . well, then, there very well might be something wrong with you. 
[This message has been edited by Garp (edited March 13, 2006).]
Still, I agree with your definition of a *good* writer.
So with my writing at times. I had some early accolades, you know, grade school kids laughing at my cool stories, and everyone kind of expected writing out of me, and I think I loved it back then. They kept expecting it though as I found other interests, like sports, s etc., and I didn't quite have the same drive for it. I still like people to read my stuff and like it, but find myself thinking of it as my ticket out of hand to mouth existence--and that's probably a wrong thought process.
Still though, I can't seem to quit writing, so maybe that makes me a writer--and maybe since I've sold stuff in the past, I still could make a living at it, if it was what I truly desired. I think writing about sports would be one of the coolest jobs ever--that and talking about sports on a talk radio gig.
quote:
It all boils down to this: If you continue writing no matter what, you are cut out to be a writer.
Then I moved to L.A. to pursue a career in music and I met REAL guitarists -- i.e., professional guitarists. They were far, far more serious than I was, knew things about the insturment and about technique that I'd never heard of -- things I found trite, borning . . . but things that separated them from me. And I realized that I too wasn't a guitarist, just some guy who could play the guitar.
That's the difference between someone who is a writer and someone who just puts words on a page. The writer is serious about learning the craft, gaining mastery, understanding how fiction works, and trying to do it in his own work.
Final point. You agree with me, even if you don't want to admit it. What if, for example, I said, "Screw POV! It's overrated. It's stupid. It doesn't matter. Look at how many professional writers don't pay any attention to POV. I shirk the yoke of POV off my shoulders, and I'm never going to think about it again." You would say, I hope, that I'm living a delusion if I think I'm ever going to make it with that attitude. You'd say that even though there are professional writers who play around with POV, they're able to do this because they understand what POV is and how it works. POV is absolutely essential to good fiction and if you want to be a writer you absolutely must master it.
Those who master it are on their way to being writers. Those who don't give a flip about it are nothing more than doodlers.
This is why I say that being a writer has little, if nothing, to do with the compulsion to write, and has little, if nothing, to do with the perseverance of writing "no matter what." Becoming a writer is about learning how to craft good fiction. If you're not willing to do that, then, in my not-so-humble opinion, you're not a writer.
As for meeting up with better guitarists---I realized long ago that (1) some use their witnessing of the experience and abilities of others as a spur to better their own abilities, and (2) the best music isn't necessarily made by the best musicians.
Writing for me is just the same way---when I encounter something particularly well done, I enjoy it and let it inspire me to try to reach new heights. (Then again I encounter a lot that I'm sure I've already done better than, but that's another story.) You can't let the idea that someone is better than you, at something you want to do, defeat you or prevent you from doing what you want to do.
In writing there are no savants. There are storyteller savants, certainly, but writing requires so many different skills and so many different thought processes that there is no such thing as a savant writer.
If you are going to be a great writer you are going to spend time studying it, practicing it. And this is altogether not the same thing as a published writer.
To be a great fiction writer, you must know the language well enough to convey your meaning. Does this mean you need to diagram every sentence in your novel? No, but you should understand what sentance structure is and when you can get away with not using proper sentence structure.
Same with PoV. You must know what PoV is and what the expectations are on the part of the reader with each PoV and you need to know when you can get away with violating PoV.
Same with every rule of writing. Know them, know when they are absolute and when they are not.
What constitutes a great writer anyway? Book sales or whether your book is the tenth grade text book of the next generation?
How many books you get published? (What else did Harper Lee write?)
A writer or a great writer?
A writer is someone who writes to express. I'd put a big fat period after that that. A great writer? Well lets just call a great writer a writer who excels and leave it at that.
Can anyone be a writer? Yes. Can anyone be an author? No. Not everyone's cracked up for it.
A writer is a practisioner of a skill. There are tons of authors out there who cannot write. And there are many more writers out there who deserve to be read.
A talented writer deserves respect. A successful author deserves respect if they are a talented writer.
WRITER: someone who writes
BAD WRITER: someone who writes poorly
GOOD WRITER: someone who writes well
GREAT WRITER: someone who writes extremely well
ASPIRING WRITER: someone who strives to be better than they are
AUTHOR: someone who has been published
ASPIRING AUTHOR: someone who wants to be published
WANNABE: someone who doesn't try at all but thinks they deserve to be a good writer or an author.
CDELEBRITY AUTHOR: someone who doesn't deserve to be an author but got there by means of having the right connections...usually either bad or fake (hired a ghost writer)
(note: these categories are not, of course, mutually exclusive)
I know a local writer who can't put three coherent sentences together without help from a proof reader, but she has turned out two original self help books that have received some attention. That makes her both an author and a writer. Not a good writer, but a writer none the the less. She is currently working on a third book.
Why split hairs and re-define the concepts of writer and author when it's easier just to denote the difference in quality of work with words like good and bad?
quote:
The first million words are for practice. If you happen to sell some of those practice words, that's great, but if you don't, it's just practice. If in your second million words you're still not selling, then it's time to reevaluate whether you have what it takes to be a writer.
I would add that if you don't have sufficient drive to work toward writing that first million words, then you're probably not cut out to be a writer.
Me, I'm at over 200,000 words of practice so far.
Who cares? I am a writer. It isn't a matter of being cut out for the job.
Chrissie
As you have seen thus far there is no real answer to this question. Either you believe it or you don't. There is no middle man. If you do believe you can do this, be prepared to walk a very long road. It is hard, but anything you love is worth the journey. If you don't believe in yourself -- and it will be tested -- then this will be one of those roads that you walk down for a while, but eventually you will find a side path and take that one instead. No matter which is the case, you should always seek what makes you happy.
Chrissie
Writing is part art and mostly craft. Craft can be improved with practice. All that seperates neophyte writers and capable writers are the number of words on paper and a willingness to change the fiddly bits.
Grim
Back on topic--- if you can't do it well, you aren't cut out for it. If you can, then you are, but that doesn't mean you have to do it. Most people are multi talented and have a preference for one over the others. Let that be your guide.
~Alethea