100 Words for 100 Days

[JoannaC]

Hi everyone

I read an article on the net about a writing challenge and decided tot ry it with two of my writing groups. One of them (the lazy one) it has sort of fizzled with, but with my other group it has really taken off. I get several emails a day from people thanking me for starting it and telling me how much it revitalized their writing. It is such a simple challenge. Basically, you agree to write 100 words for 100 consecutive days. You can write more than 100, of course, but you cannot stockpile (i.e. if you write 200 today you cannot save half of it for tomorrow). And---here is the important part---if you miss a day, you have to start counting again at 1 tomorrow. SO---if you get to day 99 and forget you have to go back to the beginning again :)

100 words is such a small amount that it is attainable for busy people, yet it does add up and people in my group are finishing long-neglected stories. And most of them, once they get going, clock more than 100 :) It has been such a big hit, I thought I would share it with the rest of you. I wish I could remember where I saw the article, but to whomever wrote it, my writing group and I thank you.

[Jamesaritchie]

I suspect writers who have to be challenged just to write 100 words for 100 days stand very little chance of ever being successful.

Those who succeed are almost always those who love writing enough that they write pretty much every spare minute of every day.

Instead of a hundred words for a hundred days, try two hours minimum per day for four years. This is what most of those who go on to have a career in writing do.

[arrowqueen]

While agreeing with what you say, James (I write between 1,2000-2,000 per diem) at least Joanna's suggestion is a wee step towards the discipline of writing every day.

Cheers,
aq

[James D Macdonald]

I gotta say that anything that puts your butt in the chair and your fingers on the keyboard is a good thing.

[maestrowork]

I agree. Anything that helps you write every day toward your goal (and not just writing anything, like email) is a good thing. The point is not whether you write 100 or 20000 words a day -- the point is that you write original material *every day* which could be hard for some people.

[veingloree]

I don't write every day and I not sure it is necessary. (Some days I am locked in a surgery with sterile hands until late at night, dont ask). Writing every day is a good goal, writing a set amount per week or having a certain number of submissions sent each month are also good goals. It is a matter of having goal small enough to acheive, big enough to be worthwhile and suitable for your chosen lifestyle.

[HConn]

If my goal was 100 words a day, I'd quit. That's just not enough. That's a novel every three years.

Change it to a 1,000 words over 1,000 days and I'd be interested.

[aka eraser]

I think the idea is a good one, particularly for those in the formative stages and those suffering from an extreme case of Procrastinitis.

The limit is not at all daunting and as the original poster mentioned (sorry, forgot to double-check name) most far exceed that limit each sitting.

The key is getting the butt in the chair, the word processor open and their fingers on the keyboard determined to put a dent in that blank space.

[Yeshanu]

For those who don't think a hundred words a day is enough, here's a real challenge:

www.3daynovel.com/ (http://www.3daynovel.com/)

Any takers?

[Fresie]

Any takers?

Hey, if I could somehow, anyhow get myself three days off just to write, I would be happy as a pig in, eer, you know. Even though my loved ones would start to question my mental adequacy.

No such luck (three days off just to write, I mean) in the coming couple of decades. :(

[maestrowork]

1000 words a thousand days (which is 3 years)?

[HConn]

A novel in three days is an interesting challenge.

My wife and son are taking a short trip next week. I was planning to finish my current novel while they're gone. Maybe I should try to take the challenge then. I know the Labor Day weekend will be impossible.

[James D Macdonald]

I've done a novel in three days.

My wrists didn't recover for months.

No thanks, not going to do that again.

[HConn]

Hmm. I hate pain. I'm the biggest wussy there is.

Maybe 4 days.

:b

Not for the contest, though. That costs $50.

[Greenwolf103]

Hm, I'll do it. For free. ;) BUT only if someone is kind (BRAVE) enough to watch my daughter for those 3 days.

The shortest amount of time I've done a novel is 3 months. And, yeah, I'm always aiming for a record even SHORTER than that! :)

And, HConn: I'VE GOT YOU ON MY RADAR!!!

[ChicagoWriter]

100 words a day? Ha. Junior-high-school kids write more than that in their text-messages to each other.

Serious writers need to write at least 1000 words a day to really get anything accomplished, and even that is very low. People who write 100 words a day are not writers. Set the bar a little higher if you're serious about this business.

[maestrowork]

SMS and email or even blogs are different than original story material. I write probably over 2000 words a day if you count email, messages, blogs, posts on AW, etc. but sometimes it takes me a whole day, BIC, to come up with 500 words of "literary" writing.

You can't push real creativity. But yes, you should write every day. Even if you only come up with 50 words.

[Jamesaritchie]

On the surface, the idea is good, and so is anything that puts your butt in the chair, but I also think 100 words per day for 100 days is probably going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy at best.

Three points. First, there's a lot of truth to the old saw that we all have a million words of garbage words covering the golden words we want, and you have to get the million words of garbage out of your system before you can start writing the golden words. This just isn;t likely to happen with the philosophy of 100 words per day for 100 days.

Second, I didn't pick the two hours per day for four years at random. That's what the average writer has to put in to start selling to professional level markets, and it's the minimum most of the famous pro writers put in to get where they are today. This was a study I saw many years ago, and I strongly suspect it's just as true now as it was then. It was extremely rare to find a pro writer who managed to become a pro without putting in a bare minimum of two hours per day, five days per week, during their wannabe years.

Third. All the successful writer I know are ones who didn't need carrots and didn;t need goals and didn't need trick. They're the ones who moved heaven and earth to make plenty of writing time every day, no matter how hectic their lives were, or what was going on around them. They couldn't wait to start writing each day. The problem was always making themselves quit, not making themselves start.

If writing is a chore, if it's something you have to make yourself do, find tricks to use just to get 100 words a day in, my guess is that's persons reason for writing is that they want to be a writer, not that they want to write. A huge difference.

If you want to be a writer, success is always going to be elusive. But if what you want to do more than anything else is sit down and actually write, you dont need tricks or carrots, you'll move mountains to find the time, and you'll use the time writing. Success is far more likely to come to those who want more than anything to sit down and write than it is to those who want to be writers.

[pina la nina]

Good points have been made here by all - but it makes me wonder about our assumptions.

We seem to be assuming that people's goals are to become "successful" writers or professionals even. But I doubt that's the case by and large for most people. Maybe they'd love fame to happen to them, but its abstract, sort of like winning the lottery and never buying the tickets - it's not a real goal in a any sense of the word.

Most folks I've talked to who are interested in writing, my own father and mother for example, are people who really have no illusions about writing a bestselling novel - and writing for them is such a low priority they haven't done much at all in years. perhaps they were discouraged in their youth or got caught up in busy careers and let it slip away.

Is there anything at all wrong with encouraging them to try it again? Why should exercising their minds and learning to express themselves be something we should look down on? Certainly they won't be professionals that way, but 100 words might be more than they've granted themselves in a decade.

If such a writer - inexperienced, unmotivated, afraid of their own words - writes, just a bit at a time, okay, sure it's likely they have nothing to say that hasn't been said before, or is publishable at all. But maybe not, maybe they find that indeed they do.

It's not so wrong to give people permission to get their words onto paper, even bad words, even unpublishable-noncareer making words.

Plenty of people think they have the given right to spew uncontainable garbage all over the place; just because they are prolific and unable to stop themselves does not make me necessarily want to read their work.

[ChicagoWriter]

"If you want to be a writer, you write."
--Stephen King

This is from Stephen King's preface to one of his short story collections (Skeleton Crew, I think, but don't quote me) He makesh a great study of why all the people who come up to him at conferences saying "You know, I always wanted to be a writer" (even though they've never really written anything) drive him crazy. King's standard response to people who say this to him is "You know, I always wanted to be a brain surgeon." Which usually shuts those wannabes up quick.

Writing is a serious undertaking. People who randomly type platitudes in journals or type 100 words a day or need "tricks" to make them write but don't spend the serious time, sacrifice, and devotion to the craft do not deserve to call themselves writers, any more than someone who doesn't even have a medical degree, let alone practice medicine, has the right to call himself a brain surgeon.

"Writer" is a term for a profession, just like "lawyer", "doctor" "teacher", etc.----i.e.,someone whose life occupation is writing. If this doesn't describe you, you're not a writer. Doesn't mean you couldn't become one someday---but until you live by your pen in some way or another, you really cannot call yourself by the name of the profession.

[maestrowork]

We all know what happens when you "assume."

There is no one way to do anything.

Do what works for you. Take any other advice with a grain of salt. What works for the other person doesn't necessarily work for you.

I for one cannot always sit there and write 3000 words a day, garbage or no garbage. Does that make me less of a writer? I don't think so. My work method is simply different than others's. At the end, it's the work product that counts, not the method.

It's just like acting. Some are method actors, some aren't. Some act every day or they'll die. Some don't.

Or like any other profession.

[maestrowork]

"Writer" is a term for a profession, just like "lawyer", "doctor" "teacher", etc.----i.e.,someone whose life occupation is writing. If this doesn't describe you, you're not a writer.

I disagree. By your definition, most people on this board are not "writers" because they don't do it professionally.

You're a writer because you write. Pure and simple.

You're a "professional writer" if you get paid to write. That's the difference.

[Stephenie Hovland]

There are serious, professional writers, like most or all of the people who've replied to this message. And, then there are the hobby writers. I've been a hobby writer for a little while now and feel the unending urge to write more. So, soon enough, I'll be in the professional category. (I've been really irritable lately because I feel like I'd rather be writing, or doing something writing-related, than anything else.)
Hobby writers need something like the 100 words for 100 days goal. Professional writers don't. It's very possible to be a hobby writer at one time in your life and a professional writer at another time.

[Gala]

Joanna, you said,
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> get several emails a day from people thanking me for starting it and telling me how much it revitalized their writing.<hr></blockquote>

I'm glad you've got more people out there expressing themselves.

Yeah, I agree with what's been said after your post, in terms of what works for me, my goals and disciplines. But what I got from your post was that you have inspired some people to express themselves in writing. I've no idea who they are, what their challenges are.

I do know that in his memoir, A Movable Feast Hemingway described working all morning to get one sentence; he labored over the idea he would ever write something so long as a novel (he was jealous of his friend Scott Fitzgerald who had just published The Great Gatsby

Good job!

When I was new to novel writing, I organized a writers retreat. A large group of writers followed me up to a B and B in Canada for the weekend. Most of them had been in the game far longer than I, yet my retreat was a huge success. I'm surprised none laughed in my face...no, they loved my enthusiasm and ability to inspire them.

I once took a challenge to write, I think it was 100 or 200 words a day for a week in Spanish. Man, it was torture, but I did it.



<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/image/posticons/pi_hippie.gif" />

[maestrowork]

I'm a professional writer, but not a professional novelist (yet). So what does that make me? Semi-professional? Selectively professional? :lol

[ChicagoWriter]

Actually, if you don't live by your pen, professionally speaking, you are not a writer. "Writer", with a capital W, is a professional occupation recognized by the IRS. If you don't put "Writer" on your tax return as your occupation, you're not a writer yet. Period.

You might type some words on your computer, but until you sell enough of that work to declare income on your tax return, and/or have a full-time job as a professional writer (corporate writing jobs count), you are not a Writer. You're just someone who happens to type words people don't read. (i.e., there is no IRS-recognized occupation for "Diarist"). Your writing "method" has nothing to do with it if it's not your occupation.

[Stephenie Hovland]

I've got to disagree with that. I guess that I'm not a mother, a woman, a musician, a teacher, or a writer -- just because I don't make money as one.

[Greenwolf103]

Actually, if you don't live by your pen, professionally speaking, you are not a writer. "Writer", with a capital W, is a professional occupation recognized by the IRS. If you don't put "Writer" on your tax return as your occupation, you're not a writer yet. Period.

You might type some words on your computer, but until you sell enough of that work to declare income on your tax return, and/or have a full-time job as a professional writer (corporate writing jobs count), you are not a Writer.

This is ... (expletive deleted)!!!

What's to be said of the teenaged writer selling articles! (And, yes, they exist!) What's to be said of the unpublished WRITER who writes religiously every day, without fail, spending years honing their craft and perfecting their technique.

THESE PEOPLE ARE WRITERS!! Whether or not the government recognizes them as such.

There's no way I'm going to let the government decide whether or not I'm a writer. Just because I don't bring in millions like Stephen King or make $50,000 a year from writing. That's the way the government would like it.

You cannot measure whether or not a person is a writer simply by how much money they're making -- if they're making any money at all.

Does this mean all those years I wrote as a kid and as a teenager were years I was NOT a writer? NO!

Writing is a professional title, yes.
But that doesn't mean it's limited to whether or not you're making any money from it.

If you are writing, you are a writer. Professionally or otherwise.

--Dawn

[maestrowork]

My friend is a firefighter. He doen't get paid doing it. But he is a firefighter. Damn the IRS.

[pina la nina]

I must be missing something.

Big W, little W - what difference does it make? Is there some reason why we need to be all in a huff about whether people earn any money at writing? Is the next question how much we earned? If you don't have a net salary of over 40,000$ a year from writing then you aren't a Writer?

What's the big deal? I thought the point was simply to write and get better at it. Maybe enjoy it? Maybe write something we really like? Maybe sell some of what we write?

Or are those not lofty enough ambitions for the big W's?

[HConn]

And, HConn: I'VE GOT YOU ON MY RADAR!!!

Yikes! Does this mean you're going to fire on me?

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

Personally, I have sympathy for ChicagoWriter's point. I know people don't like to be told they shouldn't call themselves writers, but I don't refer to myself that way.

I don't care what you call yourself (generic "you"), but I am not in the profession yet. So I don't call myself a "Writer."

[Greenwolf103]

If you are only writing JUST to make money from it (and I can think of some real life examples -- *sigh*) and NOT for the enjoyment of it, then you are missing out on a lot. Really.

[Greenwolf103]

LOL No, HConn. It only means I'm keeping you in mind for my "writing parent" books. :) The first volume will be out in a couple of months and the second volume is what I am working on right now.

I have to FIND all of these writing parents to interview for the books. And your post indicated that you are one, too.

It's a book where I interview successful writing parents. Though I don't plan to close up the second volume for a couple of years. It also includes essays from writers previously interviewed in earlier volumes.

You can EZ E-mail me for more info, if you'd like. And check out our private room to get "in on it" too.

--Dawn

[espz]

And here I thought a writer was someone who wrote, and an Author was someone who got paid to write. :jump

[maestrowork]

An author has a byline. :grin

[Fresie]

I laboriously wrote a long answer to this only to hit the button and see the "some fields are missing" page (and there'd been no missing fields) and when I came back, the page was already blank. :shrug Then I went off to have a look at a couple of sites and amazingly, stumbled across an article that seems to summarise what we're discussing here, and does it much better than my half-baked perished attempt! So if you want to have a look, it's here and it seems to fit the discusion -- anyway, reflects what I wanted to say myself.

www.2blowhards.com/archiv...tml#000809 (http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/000809.html#000809)

[Euan Harvey]

>"Writer" is a term for a profession, just like "lawyer", "doctor" "teacher", etc. ... until you live by your pen in some way or another, you really cannot call yourself by the name of the profession.

So this means that poets don't exist, right?

Cheers,

Euan

[reph]

Fresie, the ezboard glitch that you describe happens when you've been accidentally logged out.

[Euan Harvey]

>Second, I didn't pick the two hours per day for four years at random. That's what the average writer has to put in to start selling to professional level markets, and it's the minimum most of the famous pro writers put in to get where they are today.


Hmm. Interesting. My average is about two hours a day (I guess -- maybe a little more), and I've been writing for just under a year.

Only another three years and 700,000 (about) words to go.

Easy. [Laughs maniacally before sobbing]

Cheers,

Euan

[HConn]

Euan, don't think about those three years. Think about the three decades (and more, I hope) that you'll be writing.

That is a reason for sobbing.

:D

[evanaharris]

Personally, I have sympathy for ChicagoWriter's point. I know people don't like to be told they shouldn't call themselves writers, but I don't refer to myself that way.

I don't care what you call yourself (generic "you&quot;) , but I am not in the profession yet. So I don't call myself a "Writer."

I disagree with Chicago, though I do, like you, have sympathy for her point. After all, www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) defines "writer" as "One who writes, especially as an occupation."

So she's right. Kinda. And a bit arrogant.

But I, also, don't refer to myself as a "writer", or as an "author", just because it comes off a bit arrogant, a bit poseur-ish as long as I'm not published. "I write", I say. Sometimes I go so far as: "I write books and short stories."

But usually only if someone asks.

(And even an author is defined as:

"1. The writer of a book, article, or other text.
2. One who practices writing as a profession.")

So as long as you've written something, you're an author, just not a writer.

But, as someone else said, it's pointless.

(Goes back to the thing he does two hours a day that's not Writing because he hasn't yet gotten paid for it.)

[ChicagoWriter]

In addition to the fact that the dictionary definition (and the IRS definition) of a Writer is someone who is published, who writes as an occupation, the other point of my post is that those of us who take the craft of writing seriously enough to make it our full-time livelihood resent being lumped in with people who scribble 100 random words a day in a diary or need "tricks" to motivate them to write something that is likely unpublishable. (Granted, I wrote a lot of unpublishable dreck in the early days, but I always took my craft seriously, getting the training and putting in the years and years of time and labor that it takes to make it in this business).

My other point: serious writers are self-motivated. We don't need "100 words for 100 days" gimmicks to make us write. We write anyway, no matter what. In fact, for most of us, if we didn't write, we'd just go crazy.

[Stephenie Hovland]

In fact, for most of us, if we didn't write, we'd just go crazy.

So, if I write more, I may become less crazy? That's enough motivation for me!!

:)

[James D Macdonald]

"D'ye see the walls? Tall, set without mortar, yet you couldn't fit a knife-blade in the chinks. I built those walls, all of 'em. But call me 'Angus The Wall-Builder'? They do not. And d'ye see these roads? Straight and level, the surface smooth. I made those roads, all of 'em. But call me 'Angus the Road-Maker'? They do not. But screw just one little sheep...."

[maestrowork]

Angus the Politician?

[Greenwolf103]

I still disagree with you, ChicagoWriter. Because, guess what? Today's diarist or struggling writer can be tomorrow's working writer.

the other point of my post is that those of us who take the craft of writing seriously enough to make it our full-time livelihood resent being lumped in with people who scribble 100 random words a day in a diary or need "tricks" to motivate them to write something that is likely unpublishable.

That sounds a little snobbish to me. If I gotta deal with that attitude in the ranks of published writers, then my response is: DEAL WITH IT. I'll never shoot an aspiring writer down just because they're not published YET or because they aren't writing any books YET. And do you know why? Because that used to be me. And that used to be you.

A writer is someone who writes. I stand by that comment.

[ChicagoWriter]

Today's diarist is still a diarist. They are not writers until they are published and earning money. THEN they can call themselves writers. NOT BEFORE.

I didn't call myself a writer until I had published something and been paid for it. It's pretty arrogant to do otherwise.

[pina la nina]

My question remains - how is this relevant?

When do you refer to yourself as anything?

I think it's helpful, in terms of this board, for example, to call people who write, writers - because herein lies information on writing, grammar, plotting, character development, yada yada.
One imagines that coming here for information on golfing or parasailing would be a waste of time. If I search the web on information about writing, I may also search on the word "writer" or "author" or "novelist." These are helpful terms locate a group of people who like to do what I do and like to waste time talking about it.

In other situations - at my workplace, at my niece's first communion, at my high school reunion - it to me, is utterly irrelevant whether someone calls himself a writer or not, and although I have been paid for my words, I do not bring it up, unless it seems like something fun to talk about. Which is rarely.

So who cares what you call yourself? As long as you aren't operating without a license?

[Greenwolf103]

Okay, ChicagoWriter. Your opinion is your opinion. I have already stated mine. Peace. :peace

[ChicagoWriter]

Those of us who take the craft of writing seriously enough to make it our livelihoods also make sure to protect our livelihoods. If any Joe Schmo who scribbles ravings in a diary thinks he can call himself a writer, then it devalues what professionals do. In other words, it works to threaten our livelihood.

This is why professional writers' organizations like the Author's Guild, Dramatists Guild, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Mystery Writers of America, and many other writers orgs, have barriers to entry before you can join---i.e., you must have published a number of works in specific markets. (Vanity publication does not qualify, nor does publishing in most small magazines and small presses.)

[Gala]

I had coffee with a writer in my community the other day. He had attended my workshop one time, then decided it wasn't for him. I knew that too, for it was clear there was nothing he could learn.

He has written several books, (non published, but that's only a "matter of finding time to get a NY Literary agent") and the first chapter of a novel. He is retired, wealthy, and writes, "for fun, not because I have to."

He explained to me how writing several books a year is no big deal. His books are easy reads, he says, only around 100 pages. As for the novel, he's created a new thriller genre, and writing that first chapter took only a coupla hours. The rest can be done in one to three months, in between building his mansion, playing golf, vacationing, and dealing with his overly-analytical wife. Writing is so easy for him, he said. Totally serious, full eye-contact, happy expression. He believes, and who am I to know otherwise?

Anyway, I wanted to say a thing or two to this guy, but didn't. He knows what he knows. I used to think writing a novel would be a piece o' cake, too.

Here's what I've found: (I'm a writer and author and the IRS cares) The more and longer I write the less I give a flying f. who calls themselves writer. Let them dream.

Chicago, I relate to your anger, if that's what it is; if it's not anger, well, I'm angry about those people who dare to demean my profession by calling it easy. lol.

I wonder if, when you've written a few million words, you'll have time to care? Yeah, the anger may flit across the screen now and then, as it does for me. I choose to laugh it off. ymmv.

I've found overall that the most inexperienced writers are the most cocky and defensive about being writers.

The rest are too busy having fun to care. Again, ymmv. I think Norman Mailer might agree with you. Read The Spooky Art

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/image/posticons/pi_money.gif" />

[ChicagoWriter]

I'm a big Mailer fan, actually. He has shaped a lot of my own opinions about the writing life.

Me, I'm in-between manuscripts right now, which is why I have some time to get on my soapbox on a board. My agent has my novel in front of several publishing houses in NYC, now awaiting awaiting editor replies; my plays are being evaluated for possible production at several theatres (again awaiting replies), and my stories are sitting with several magazine editors. I've been spending my summer waiting for sales/rejections to come in, while in the meantime writing and selling the occasional article until I get the next big idea for the next novel or play.

[Gala]

Congrats, and I wish you well, Chicago.

You're in good company here.

Perhaps you're familiar with Mailer's wars with Tom Wolfe? He wrote one of the world's longest book reviews about Wolfe's A Man in Full when it came out. I found it hilarious.

I'm curious to know, are you indeed angry at people calling themselves writers/authors, when by your definition they are not? Or are folks just misunderstanding what it is you're attempting to convey in your prose here? (critiquer nods and smiles gently.) Anger is fine by me, but I try not to direct it at people here personally...hence my anecdote about that guy.

Since you're so knowledgable, perhaps you'll find time to contribute a bit of your expertise to the more technical threads.

Cheers.

P.S. chicago: I would write for free, for myself, and never show it to anyone, because I love it so. When I tapped into that sea, was when I first felt like a writer and especially an artist. But the irs, publishers, $$, friends and strangers, a corp. or 2, of course gave me the label long before that. I know I will always write. That I get to inspire people, entertain and make a few bucks is extra.

[ChicagoWriter]

It's a mix of irritation and anger, I guess, albeit the anger is more directed at vanity publishers like PublishAmerica who have led to a culture in which people think that anyone who can type is a writer. The arrogance of your wealthy friend is another source of that kind of frustration. These people have no idea how much time, determination, and most of all, humility, it takes to be a real writer.

[Gala]

Ha!

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>These people have no idea how much time, determination, and most of all, humility, it takes to be a real writer<hr></blockquote>

Let me tell you I was the queen of diplomacy listening to this guy. He's seen what I call "The Beast", the current working-revision of my biggest wop. I just know he thinks it was so easy for me (after all, I don't even have a wife to contend with.)

In all though, I do support all who make time to express themselves, and who seek to improve their lives; even 100 words for 100 days. But don't ask me to do that in Spanish! lol.

Let us know more about your success as you go along. Good luck.

Yeah, re PA and vanity; though I have bought books friends published with iUniverse, to support them. In their case I knew they had paid their dues, had good books, and for their reasons went those routes.

Hey, there's a lot of ugliness out in the world; I focus on beauty.

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/image/posticons/pi_hippie.gif" />

[Arisa81]

I have a few thoughts on all that's been talked about here.

1) 100 words for 100 days. This is good for someone starting out or someone with little time. As time goes on of course they'll probably want to write more. But for starting out, good idea. Personally, I find myself writing so many different things that if I wanted to write a novel, it would be a good idea to pick a word or time limit per day to get it going.

2) Who is a writer? Well, when someone asks "what do you do for a living?" and you do this as your job, say "I am a writer"

If someone says what are your hobbies and writing is your hobby (something you don't seek to get paid for but do) say you write.

I'm not sure why the whole issue of who is and isn't a writer came up, but all of us here are writers (paid and/or unpaid). We write, it's what we do, we are writers.

Example: someone who has a hobby of scrapbooking, calls themself a scrapbooker...they don't get paid for it, but it isn't wrong to say.

I'm not even going to get into the IRS definition, that's going a little far with this whole thing. We are all writers. We are here to learn and share experiences. No one should be getting on their high horse b/c they are what the IRS defines as a writer and someone else might not.

[LiamJackson]

I dont the reference to the IRS had much to do with the definition of "a writer." I took it as Gala has enjoyed a measure of commercial success to the point that the IRS took notice :)

Apologies if my interpretation is incorrect.

[HConn]

But screw just one little sheep...."


:rollin

[arrowqueen]

Sorry, Chicago, but I'm with Gala. I'm a professional and I couldn't care tuppence if anyone else wants to call themselves a writer. Hell, they can call themselves 'The Great High Poobah' or 'Chronos, Warlord of the Universe' for all the difference it makes to my work!

Anyway, we all have to start at the bottom and we may be on different rungs, but we're all trying to climb the same ladder - and giving someone a little boost, if we can, isn't going to hurt. Somewhere down the line, we might even get a best-seller dedicated to us.

As for 'diarists' - hey, it worked for Pepys! He wrote his in the mid 1600's and it's still being read/having films and TV series based on it. I doubt if my work's going to last that long. (Envious sigh)

;)
aq

[arrowqueen]

And Anne Frank, though the poor wee lass didn't live to appreciate it.

[Gala]

Ok.

1.<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I took it as Gala has enjoyed a measure of commercial success to the point that the IRS took notice <hr></blockquote>
= Schedule C, honey. Profit and loss from business.

2. Diarists: Thank God and Hallelujah for them! My mother wrote in a journal occasionally over the years, and I have re-read it many times since her death. And my brother, who died recently: I'd forgotten he was quite the letter writer at times, especially when he was in the Army during Viet Nam, and when in a mental institution for schizophrenia years later. His prose has a special flavor, and he was very talented as a writer, though I don't think he was ever recognized for it. His topic would be, "Writers who don't know they are."

3. Go Anne Frank! I stood in the display room on the bottom floor of her house, after touring the annex. Next to her sweet photo was an enlargement of her words to the effect, "I hope to be a world famous writer one day." You see, she didn't call herself a writer.

Truly, I've noticed real writers and artists are the most modest about it all. Heavens, Steinbeck was full of self-doubt upon receiving his Nobel, and sure enough, idiot critics blasted him in the papers. (but they were wanna-bes, imho--can't be a writer? Cut down those who are.)

I've gotten to where when strangers ask what I do, I tell them I'm a court advocate for foster kids. It's much more interesting and concrete to explain than writer or novelist. (I'm considering rolling my eyes in public the next time I hear, "yeah I always thought I'd write a novel when I have time/when the kids grow up/when I have enough money/when I'm lucky like you." Wouldn't be to lady-like tho.)

YMMV. <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/image/posticons/pi_bigsmile.gif" />

[ChunkyC]

Actually, if you don't live by your pen, professionally speaking, you are not a writer. "Writer", with a capital W, is a professional occupation recognized by the IRS. If you don't put "Writer" on your tax return as your occupation, you're not a writer yet. Period.
So if J.R.R. Tolkein had, upon finishing Lord of the Rings, put it in a drawer word for word as it is in print today, and not sought out a publisher, he wouldn't be a writer?

I kind of know what you mean, Chicago, but I do think there's picking of nits here.

"I hope to be a world famous writer one day." You see, she didn't call herself a writer.
She said 'world famous'. She may well have considered herself a writer at that time, just not a 'world famous' one.

Personally, I have written two novels. Neither is yet published. I still consider myself a writer, because otherwise, how did those novels come into being? They certainly didn't appear out of thin air. I wrote them.

Just food for thought.

[maestrowork]

How about people who write for free (local papers, magazines, etc.) or who only gets paid $25 a piece? Can they call themselves freelance writers at all, since they either don't get paid or very little? What's the criteria? Most of them probably don't earn enough as a "writer" (ahem) to file a tax return.

I remember a similar debate among the acting community: who can call themselves actors? Professional actors take it very seriously, and would not tolerate any Joe Blow on a reality show, forex, to call himself an actor. However, if you only take into account how much money they earn, then probably 90% of SAG member can never call themselves actors (but they belong in the actor's union! Go figure). So they come up with terms like "struggling/starving actors" -- meaning waiters. LOL -- and the previleged "working" actors.

It seems to be that the criterior of being an actor would be "one who practices and improves the craft of acting in a serious attempt to start or maintain an acting career." Sounds good to me.

I would probably like to apply the same to "writers." You have the "starving writers" and the "working/professional writers." The fact is, being a "writer" is not a normal career like accountants or lawyers or doctors. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The closest comparison would be an "actor." Just ask the members of SAG -- 90% of them are not working.

[pina la nina]

On the IRS question. I just asked an expert - my friend who works there. She has graciously provided me with said answer regarding whether they care what you call yourself on your taxes.

Just thought you'd all enjoy this:

You can write any thing in that space. I myself have written "slave", "Phone wench", "government drone" and of course the ever popular "domestic goddess". I have seen so many funny things, including one this year where the woman filed as newly divorced, and where it said "name" and "occupation" for her spouse she wrote "Jackass" and "world class idiot"! The most popular for house wives are "domestic engineer", "domestic goddess", "ruler of all she surveys", "head cook and bottle washer" and the list goes on. We look at it in Data as a funny break! Anyway, it is not input into the system.... altho someone somewhere might compile a list of the answers.
Let them all know that as writers, they are required to write something funny so we, as data people, can have a good laugh.

Hey - she called us writers... :)

And maestro - I've also seen this war on mommy boards believe it or not - where the stay-at-homes take up arms against the work-outside-the-homes. It gets ugly.

I don't think anybody appreciates having other people tell them they aren't a"real" whatever they do. The criteria always seems to break down along the she-who-suffers-most line. So if you like what you do, you aren't "real" enough for anybody else.

[James D Macdonald]

My opinion:

Writer and Author are interchangable terms, and anyone who puts pen to paper and writes is a writer.

[Pthom]

Exactly.

But anyone can dip a brush into a bucket of paint, slap the fluid on a wall and call himself a painter, or another person might squeeze out pigment from a tube and smear it on canvas and also call herself a painter.

The term 'writer' is too broad. There are a few occupations for which the title is well defined: Doctor, Lawyer, Architect, Accountant. Although an EMT may save a life by performing CPR, he isn't a doctor. My brother-in-law has lots of advice about contracts, but he isn't a lawyer. I can design you a house, but I"m not an architect. And balancing a checkbook does not one an accountant make.

I paint for a living. I call my self an illustrator. I write for fun and hopefully one day for profit. I call myself a story teller. But I consider myself a writer.

I promise, Chicago, that only on that day when my books hit the shelves in Powell's bookstore, will I tell you to your face that I AM A WRITER.
;)

[spooknov]

I've also seen this war on mommy boards believe it or not - where the stay-at-homes take up arms against the work-outside-the-homes. It gets ugly.

:rollin

Sorry, I couldn't let this slip past. As being both the working mom that clocked in 60+ hrs per week and currently being a SAH (stay-at-home) mommy, let me tell ya what! It doesn't matter if you get paid in $$ or kisses or "job well done", you are what you do!

I have not earned a dime for cooking, cleaning, changing diapers, midnight feedings, etc. etc. But I'm still a mom.

Many a famous painters had to keel over dead before anyone bought a single painting. They now hang in museums worth more cash than most of us will ever see. They were still painters.

Many people work for free in public assistance/aid positions (firefighters, medics, etc.) but they are still considered firefighters and medics, are they not?

If I write 50 novels and 5000 short stories in my lifetime, I think I have earned the right to call myself a writer. Whether I sell a darn thing or not.

It is simply a title. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a way to express one's personality (IMO) whether they are professional or a hobbiest.

If I go horseback riding every day and own horses to nurture, but I never enter a competition, does that mean I'm not a horseback rider? Of course, I'm a rider. I ride horses every day. If I write every day (or most days) I am a writer. If I act like a loon continuously, I am a loon.

Do you see my point? Just because not all of us here are not published (as of yet), that does not give those of us that are a right to label others. Money is not the only thing that makes a person worthwhile. Self respect and feeling accomplishment in your personal goals are far more valuable than money.

[maestrowork]

I believe Van Gogh didn't sell any painting when he was alive (ok, maybe one?)

I suppose we can't call him a painter or artist or whatever. he was just a bum.

[HConn]

Come on, people. Get over it.

|I

:)

[ChicagoWriter]

People who freelance for newspapers and mags and get paid for it, even in small amounts, are still professional, published writers, even if it's not their full-time occupation. That's how a lot of pros get their start. My first paid publication was in the Chicago Reader, a feature for which I was paid $150. If you earn $1 or more a year from your writing, you can (and should) declare it on your tax return. If it's supplemental income, use the Schedule C and use the IRS occupation code for Writer. I was a part-time Writer for a number of years, and my tax returns reflected this, before writing became my sole source of income.

Persons in full-time corporate writing jobs are professionals, too. A lot of them also publish freelance journalism and creative writing on the side.

I hear what other people are saying about people's right to express themselves, etc., but I also think a line needs to be drawn between the professionals and the wannabes/poseurs, too.

FYI, Tolkien was a professor of medieval literature at Cambridge, and published numerous scholarly books before he published the Ring trilogy. So even if he hadn't published it, he'd still have been a writer.

[LiamJackson]

:clap

[pina la nina]

whoops - sorry to prolong this, and maybe we should have a new IRS thread - but according to my source:

quote:
Until you make over $3000, it is a hobby business.

which I will have to ask her what that means exactly. Her other comments make me understand that this means not being taxed if total earnings from writing under 3000, but I could be misunderstanding her.

I had just lumped everything in together with my regular salary, but I'm guessing I didn't have to - oops!

OK now I'm off for the weekend, so I won't be pursuing this any further :)

[ChicagoWriter]

If you make a profit of any kind, it's still taxable income, even if it is not your main source of income.

IRS rules stipulate that something is a "hobby" business only if you cannot turn a profit on it (even a $1 profit) within five years of starting the business.

Been filing these returns for years, know the rules.

[maestrowork]

You're full of contradiction, Chicago.

Serious writers need to write at least 1000 words a day to really get anything accomplished, and even that is very low. People who write 100 words a day are not writers. Set the bar a little higher if you're serious about this business.

So only 1000 words a day qualified you as a writer?

"Writer" is a term for a profession, just like "lawyer", "doctor" "teacher", etc.----i.e.,someone whose life occupation is writing. If this doesn't describe you, you're not a writer.

Oh oh, but what if you only write 100 words a day but they get published? Are they still writers?


Actually, if you don't live by your pen, professionally speaking, you are not a writer. "Writer", with a capital W, is a professional occupation recognized by the IRS. If you don't put "Writer" on your tax return as your occupation, you're not a writer yet. Period.

So now if you don't file a tax return claiming to be a writer, you're not really a writer? Screw the definition by "number of words." It's now defined by the IRS.

My other point: serious writers are self-motivated. We don't need "100 words for 100 days" gimmicks to make us write. We write anyway, no matter what. In fact, for most of us, if we didn't write, we'd just go crazy.

To me, 100 words a day is still a motivation. But never mind that. So if a person write 1000 words a day because he wants to (otherwise he'd go crazy), can he call himself a serious writer now? No, wait. He has to first earn some money selling this pieces first. And wait, he has to file a tax return first, before he can call himself a writer. Silly me.

People who freelance for newspapers and mags and get paid for it, even in small amounts, are still professional, published writers, even if it's not their full-time occupation.

Oh, so now it's not full-time anymore? Before you said it had to be "a life occupation."

If you earn $1 or more a year from your writing, you can (and should) declare it on your tax return.

Not everybody report their pittance $50 income. So by your definition, since they don't file the return (let's say she's a housewife and she only makes $50 that year selling two articles -- there's no reason for her to file a tax return), she can't call herself a writer?


Lots of contradiction here, pal. So what is it?

[Greenwolf103]

Jeez, just when I thought I could stay out of this whole stupid thing!! (sigh) :head

The whole tax thing has been previously discussed in another forum. If you only make $1 in a year from your writing, you are NOT obligated to file a tax return. There is a minimum you must make, but it's way more than $1.

[ChicagoWriter]

if you want to write off writing-related expenses (postage, paper, travel for writing-related appearance, etc), you only need to earn $1 or more to write off the expenses and take a loss on your side business. You can take a loss on your Schedule C for up to five years; as long as you show a profit within five years of starting and continue to show a profit at lease every other year after that, the IRS does consider it a business and related expenses are tax-deductible. (If you don't show a profit after the IRS-alloted period of time, they do then consider it a hobby and then you can't write off expenses anymore). Took me three years of losses before I saw my first profit.

Been doing this, filing returns on this, for years. Never been audited, never had any problems with the IRS, in fact, each year I re-check to make sure the tax code in this regard hasn't changed, and as of this year, this is still true.

[ChicagoWriter]

Never in my writing career have I met a published writer who has to use gimmicks like "100 words for 100 days" to motivate themselves to write. Professional writers are wayyyy past that English 101, "let's keep a journal" crap.

Professional writers are self-motivated.

[emeraldcite]

everybody play nice and be civil; otherwise, i'll be forced to put a lock down on the post...or send it to the take it outside board...

ps. you don't want to see me when i'm angry...>:



:evil

[maestrowork]

I'd caution anyone following Chicago tax filing advice.

If you're only making $1, the IRS usually looks at it as a hobby, and not a legit business (especially if you have a full-time job somwhere else). To establish your "writing business" as a business, you need to file as sole proprietor, etc. (consult your CPA). If it's considered only a hobby business, there are limits on how much you can "write off." I did that last year, and found that I couldn't take anything off because I made too little -- at least that's what TurboTax told me.

I recommend anyone who is serious about filing Schedule C for their "writing business" consult a CPA.

[CaoPaux]

I found this to be useful re: tax questions: www.foolscap-quill.com/wr...g2004.html (http://www.foolscap-quill.com/writersptg/wptg2004.html)

[Arisa81]

Chicago,

Not all writers do work the same way.
People have their own ways of doing things, and that is fine.
No one of can sit here and say there is only one way of doing something or one definition of anything.
We're not all motivated the same way or amount, we don't all write the same number of words a day, we don't all succeed in the same way.

Accept people for who they are and how they work. I think it is safe to say though that we all love to write. That's why we're here right?

[Yeshanu]

These people have no idea how much time, determination, and most of all, humility, it takes to be a real writer

Forgive me for going back a bit folks, but I couldn't let this pass by.

ChicagoWriter, if it takes humility to be a "real" writer, then I'm sorry to say you don't qualify, if we base your level of humility on your posts here.

Read the first few posts on Uncle Jim's thread (where he says that anything he says may be wrong under the right circumstances) to find out what "humility" really means.

Edited to add quote (from page 17 of "Learn Writing With Uncle Jim" thread):

early on, back at the beginning of this thread, I quoted McIntyre's Law: "Under the right circumstances, anything I tell you may be wrong." I also said that my mutant talent was making my opinions sound like facts.

[ChunkyC]

FYI, Tolkien was a professor of medieval literature at Cambridge, and published numerous scholarly books before he published the Ring trilogy. So even if he hadn't published it, he'd still have been a writer.
Picking of nits again, Chicago. You're deliberately side-stepping the point I was trying to make. You're not a political speechwriter, are you? (disclaimer: this was a bald-faced attempt at levity and should not be construed as a personal attack in any way) :grin

Emerald, perhaps this should go to TIO. Your decision, of course.

[HConn]

Naw. Just lock it.

There's useful information mixed in with all the indignation.

[evanaharris]

From American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition:

"writer, n. One that writes, esp. as an occupation."


From Merriam-Webster 1994 Edition:

"writer, n. One that writes, esp. as a business or occupation [synonymous with] author"


It seems like an astonishingly clear-cut case to me. Two of the most popular English-language dictionaries concur on the exact definition of a "writer". I'm slightly concerned that ChicagoWriter hasn't got a copy of either of these dictionaries, or, perhaps, she just chooses to write her own.

(And note that the dictionaries say that a writer is one who writes, not ONLY as an occupation, just "especially" as an occupation.) Christ.

[LiamJackson]

If any Joe Schmo who scribbles ravings in a diary thinks he can call himself a writer, then it devalues what professionals do. In other words, it works to threaten our livelihood.
I'm still trying to understand the quote, above. I may be missing something (I usaually do) but how exactly do the Joe Schmoes of the world hurt a "writer's" livelihood? Do publishers pay more or less depending on the number of people who claim to be writers in a given year?

If my neighbor claims to be a writer, will Government Security News cancel my SOW and demand I work for 10-20% less? How will it enhance my professional career if every non-published person vows to never again say, "I am a writer?"

As for professional associations, the last time I checked, the American Health Physicist Society wasn't founded because they were afraid of being mentioned in the same breath with "navy nuke" techs. They didn't band together out of fear that some grocery clerk would claim to be a radiation expert.

No doubt, members of certain organizations deserve and enjoy privileges of membership. However, I know of no "writing" organization with by-laws that state, "if you're not a member, you aren't a writer." If anyone knows of such a group, please pass along the information and I'll stand corrected. (And please, I'm not referring to membership critieria in general. Some HWA members probably wouldn't qualify for membership in SFWA, because they've only sold a single piece to a minor market.)

I can't help but think it's not the livelihood at stake here, but the ego.

[Niku]

This discussion has come a long way from it's root. Writers - aspiring, professional, deskbound, sporadic or otherwise -should avoid clambering onto their soap boxes to ridicule the efforts of others, however small. It all sounds a little pathetic and self-congratulatory.

[alanna]

Niku- agreed.

I have a realatively small goal to write a mere 500 words a day. I love to write, and I would spend every spare minute doing it if I could. However, I have so much going on that actually finding the time to sit and write (I'm a night person, and I'm not allowed to walk around the house after 10:30 in case I wake up somebody, and for the same reason I can't move around before 5:30. Usually this isn't a problem, and I take pen and paper to bed with me, but you get the picture.) is a huge issue. If I say to myself that I just have to write five hundred words and then I can go do that chore or make that phonecall or whatever I'll often get rolling and write a couple thousand words. But it's that "only 500 words" that gets me going. If I set the goal too high, I start psyching myself out, saying I don't have time and putting it off.

I have nothing but respect for people who can write for hours a day, and pound out ten thousand words at a sitting. This isn't practical for me, but I don't think that makes me any less qualified to be "a writer," or them any less qualified for that matter.

Sorry. But I felt compelled to give my schpeal.

[arainsb123]

Oh no, the Word Police have struck again! I have the infernal gall to call myself a writer even though I have not a professional writing credit to my name!

IMO, adding restrictions to who can and can't call themselves writers does nothing more than discourage beginning writers from taking the next step.

[alaskamatt17]

I write 2,000 words most days; sometimes I go over by a lot. Last week I wrote 18,000 words in three days, which was quite a bit for me. My record for one day is just over 9,000 words. I don't think I'm a very good writer, though--just a fast one. I do feel like I'm improving, thanks to all the advice given by members of this site, and thanks to putting in heavy duty reading time on novel-writing books (only ones by writers whose styles I like: Nancy Kress, Stephen King, Orson Scott Card). Of course, the Uncle Jim thread is invaluable.

Anyways, I'd tend to side with the people who say a writer has to write often. I've only finished two novels, and the best reward I've received is a handwritten rejection letter from Tor, so I don't have much authority on the subject. Still, I think I'm justified in saying that if you want people to pay you to write, you have to put in the time at the keyboard.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

There was an odd sort of... Calvanism? ...going on in this thread. You know, the religious belief that the Saved are already Saved and nothing they do or say in this life can change that because it's preordained? A philosophy much like that seems to be evidenced in ChicagoWriter's early posts in this topic:

1) If you need a "100 words a day" prompt to trick you into writing, you're not a real writer.

2) If you are a real writer, you'll have no problem writing for thousands of words or several hours a day.

3) Ergo, you're either a real writer right now, and don't need prompts and daily goals; or you'll never be a real writer, and shouldn't even bother.

Either you're already Saved, or you're not and never will be. Kinda depressing, no? No room in that view for gradually training oneself up to those thousands of words or several hours a day. I wonder if people holding this view also think that no one ever quit smoking except cold turkey, and no one ever lost weight except by fasting, and that no one who ever used training wheels ever successfully rode a bike?

I propose that "writing" and "discipline" are two different things. Not unrelated things; it takes a great deal of the latter to make a successful living doing the former. However, the two skills are indeed two different skills, both of which can be learned. And not everyone learns the same way.

[Pencilone]

I don't understand the reason behind bashing those who choose to do '100 words a day'. Besides, what makes you think that some of those who do '100 words a day' are not published and successful?:)

No one has to just do 100 words a day, but at least 100 words a day.
I think it's a wonderful idea, and it allows you to just pop in your head into your novel on the days you don't have much time and thus keep in touch with what it's going on there. Much better then stopping writing altogether for several days!