What do you think is the difference between writers and wannabes?

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm a wannabe.

And until the day when I actually have an agent and then a publishing contract and then an actually published novel, I will remain a wannabe.

 

[Akuma]

I'm a wannabe.

And until the day when I actually have an agent and then a publishing contract and then an actually published novel, I will remain a wannabe.

Rubbish--that's all perception.

There was one American poet who wrote fantastically, but since in the time period she lived in, she would never show her work to anyone. Her work was found and published by her children after her death.

Despite her never being published during her life, she was still a writer nonetheless.

My intelligent observation would have more bearing if it weren't so vague and if I hadn't forgotten the poet's name...

 

[janetbellinger]

Anybody who pushes a pen across a page is a writer. That cannot be taken away from you whether you ever get publsihed or not. The only question is whether you will become a published writer. A writer is a person who writes.

 

[ATP]

Then of course there are those of us who have been full-time, paid writers for more than 20 years. Many of us have never published a book or an article but someone (usually a company) pays a salary and benefits to us to write manuals, proposals, quality documents, etc.

This is in keeping with my earlier post, in that there is a pragmatic & practical element, view or 'school' when it comes to writing. It is a profession, and is recognised by the fact one receives payment for it.This extends to those 'creatives' (eg.novelists) who do it for the same reason.

For whatever reason, some 'creatives' seem to have a romantic view of writing - they 'write for themselves', or for 'the muse'. I think that this needs be balanced with the popular perception of the starving writer (artist) in a garret. Some 'creatives' might not think much about money. But, if given the choice, I think that they would like to earn from their endeavors/labours, and even a very handsome sum.

If you communicate to others via the written word (whether it is poetry, a blog, or a series of posts on a forum), you can consider yourself a writer. Think of writing as a craft. Those who TALK about GOING to write, as opposed to actually writing SOMETHING, are wannabes in my view. Those who are just getting their feet wet and have not yet EARNED payment for their writing are definitely writers but could be classed as apprentices.

I think this puts it in perspective quite nicely.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Rubbish--that's all perception.

There was one American poet who wrote fantastically, but since in the time period she lived in, she would never show her work to anyone. Her work was found and published by her children after her death.

Despite her never being published during her life, she was still a writer nonetheless.

My intelligent observation would have more bearing if it weren't so vague and if I hadn't forgotten the poet's name...

Well, it's my perception, isn't it? So how can it be rubbish? The question was addressed to each of us on what our definition was. I offered mine. I feel to be a writer I have to have had a novel published. Anything less and I'm just a wannabe.

And if I die unpublished, no matter how many novels I wrote, then I'll have died a never-was. If my kids get my stuff published, then I'll be a post-mortem writer. But in my lifetime, as long as I remain unpublished, I'll be a wannabe in my mind.

 

[ATP]

Anybody who pushes a pen across a page is a writer. That cannot be taken away from you whether you ever get publsihed or not. The only question is whether you will become a published writer. A writer is a person who writes.

For some perspective, you might like to go to Google, and enter the following command - definition: writer.

I think that you will be surprised and intrigued at what you find.

 

[Silver King]

You know, ATP, I love you. I really do. But sometimes, you come across as a wet rag. You know what I mean? You have a way of staunching a discussion unlike anyone else I've ever met on these boards.

 

[sealy]

Grammar and punctuation? Maybe an outline?

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

You know, ATP, I love you. I really do. But sometimes, you come across as a wet rag. You know what I mean? You have a way of staunching a discussion unlike anyone else I've ever met on these boards.

Now, I've not been historically following ATP's posts, but his idea to google didn't sound like a wet rag, it sounded like a contribution to this thread. I googled "definition: writer" and several dictionary responses came up that said, "one who writes, especially as an occupation" and "one who writes, or had written." Those sound like reasonable definitions to me.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

For some perspective, you might like to go to Google, and enter the following command - definition: writer.

I think that you will be surprised and intrigued at what you find.

Noun1.

writer - writes (books or stories or articles or the like) professionally (for pay)

But, then I checked a real dictionary, the printed variety:

Writer 1.) A person who writes or is able to write. 2.) a person who's profession or business is writing: author 3.) (in Scots law) an attorney; lawyer.

So the spirit of the word is essentially how you look at its meaning from your own perspective. If I look at it from EnigineerTiger's perspective, I was a professional writer/illustrator years ago while I was employed to draw exploded view technical drawings/instructions and illustrated assembly literature for mechanical systems.

It's subjective. If you want to write and work at it, published or not, I respect that.

 

[Higgins]

Real Wannabees

What do you think separates the writers from the wannabes?

Real wannabees have the inner toughness, the go-to-itiveness, the I'm-here-and-not-there guts and determination to just want to be what they are not at all.

For a real wannabee, that's enough of an achievement, and being satisfied with that is a start, even without going anywhere at all, or even getting started going anywhere. Because if you have the inner "I've-got-what-it-takes" to face the fact that you are more than happy to have gotten over not having started anything much...well then, there you are.

For a real wannabee, just going backward for a few days in time is a kind of progress: "My God!" he wants to exclaim, "This really is last Wednesday and I still haven't done a thing. I fact, I haven't even done what I did do because, that was Last Thursday. Well, I'm not disappointed because Thursday is tomorrow."

But he doesn't say that. Instead he wonders: "What if tomorrow is Tuesday?"

Then he thinks he will be forced to imagine himself saying: "Good grief, now its the Tuesday before last Wednesday. This is getting troublesome. At this rate it will take me three days to get to the week before last."

That's when you realize that all you have left is the guts to get up again and hope you are not traveling steadily backward in time.

 

[Shara]

I agree with those that say 'writers write'.

I believe writers are born, not made. Writers are always writing, generally from being quite young children, usually starting out scribbling little stories in the back of school note books and some such. It may be that you didn't let anyone know at that point that you were doing this, but the urge to write has always been there.

You can't teach someone to be a writer. You can teach someone how to be a better writer - how to tighten up their use of language, structure plots and so forth, but you can't teach the urge to write, that's just there, within you.

Hence, there isn't really any such thing as a 'wannabe writer'. However, if you're talking about a 'wannabe novelist' - that's a different story.

Shara

 

[C.bronco]

Wannabe writers
- wish they could write but never have the time
- have a great idea all plotted out in their heads, but just can't figure out how to put it on paper
- plan to write someday

Writers write.

Honestly, that's pretty much it.

Yep.

Have you worlds within you?" Shadowlands,Peter Straub