Writer or Author

I agree with your thinking - writer for unpublished, author for published.

However, I don't think there's actually a right or wrong way to go about it I think it is encouraged to call oneself an author, to get into that mindset, even before you are published. But likewise, I'm sure there's some published authors who still call themselves writers. I think they are actually interchangeable and it's down to personal preference, or at least that's the way I've always assumed and interpreted it.

Anyone who writes is a writer.

If you have completed something, technically, you are an author. You have authored (written) a work.

But honestly, it can be a little hubristic to self-refer as an author. I don't, in most contexts, for that reason. In a formal bio, or an introduction where I need to present my credentials, I might refer to myself as an author of specific published books I wrote.

I generally just go with writer.

I did not call myself an author until I was published. Technically, you are an "unpublished author". You could say, "I'm writing a book". Or "I write books". Then let your audience call you an author

Andrew Lawrence
https://Andrew-Lawrence.blogspot.com

I agree with the published (author) and unpublished (writer) difference. You can write screenplays, blogs, novels, short stories, and so on. Until you put yourself out there for the public to judge, for my view, you are not an author (published). You can be published with blog posts, walkthroughs for games posted on a gaming site, and so on.

I wouldn't call myself an "author" unless what I created:

1) Is out in the public domain to be judged.
2) Generates income (if I call myself a "professional" author).

To agree with what was said before, "unpublished author" is fine (for completed works not out in the public domain).

I personally refer to myself as an aspiring novelist, having zero success getting my foot in the door so far. Like others here, I'd only use "author" for someone who is published. I do feel that someone self-published can rightly call himself or herself an author though.

Most of the published writers I know, myself included, refer to themselves as writers. They'll say "author" only in the context of "I'm the author of [whatever title.] That's a fair number of writers, given that I was a literary agent for many years. "Writer" refers to what they do, as opposed to what they are. It's a modesty thing, "author" being a bit pompous, but also a sort of humble-brag, the subtext being that if I say I'm a writer, you can assume I'm an author.

I generally refer to myself as a writer; technically I could say I'm an author, but as Barbara R. said, it's a bit pompous. I reserve "author" for formal introductions where presenting credentials is necessary. However, I've found "writer" works well for "published writer" and most situations. IMO, I write, therefore I'm a writer. "I author xxxx works, therefore I'm an author" sounds pretentious to me.

Personally I wouldn't call myself an author because I do not produce literary pieces yet. I still consider myself an amateur although I get paid as a writer in my professional career.

I have a couple of traditionally published novels, but I much prefer writer to author. Author has always sounded pretentious to my ears, while writer sounds more accurate and somehow cooler.

I suppose there may be some official definitions somewhere, but my understanding aligns with what most are saying here: a writer is a person who writes; an author is published. Not that it matters much though.

In the sport of running there's a distinction between a runner and a jogger. A "jogger" is anyone who laces up and goes out for a run. A "runner" is someone who has paid a race fee. (Note: "Runners" do NOT want to be called "joggers"!)

I prefer to call myself a writer. I haven't finished anything yet, and I feel like calling myself an author makes me seem like I'm bragging.

I agree that author seems to make sense for those published and writer for those who are not. But that's just my amateur opinion.

Barely comfortable calling myself a writer. Wouldn't call myself an author until something of mine is published.

Etymologically, 'author' probably derives from 'authority,' so, originally, if you have published something that is regarded as a reference or source of info, you have authority on the subject and thus have 'authored' it. It's really an old-fashioned word. I prefer 'writer' mysef.

I prefer bookwright*.









* I have never used this term**

** So far.

You know, I would not use the title "unpublished author." It's technically correct, but I wonder if it automatically casts you in a lesser light in some people's eyes. It almost sounds like "wannabe author."

I would just use "writer" and stride forward boldly with that title. Let other people call you an "author" but define yourself in the best, most uplifting way you can.

Im a sole author of this short publication.

It never occurred to me this was an issue either way. My website etc. - I'm an author. I'm an author of whatever book, in whatever genre. I never realised that was a bad word to use. I use author and writer interchangeably, and never thought anything of it (after all, there are a lot of incels who think they're literary geniuses and have no trouble using the word; why can't I?). The idea that - even after you've signed with a publisher - it's still "bad" to call yourself an author is odd. If that's the case, why does the term even exist?

I see plenty of aspiring authors running Facebook pages where they use that term to describe themselves. I've always thought having a pre-published fan page was a bit odd, but I never took offence with the use of the word.

So, if the general consensus is that "author" is associated with being published, and writers are authors waiting to be published, here's a "what if" for ya:

I wrote several papers in college and grad school that made their way into scholarly publications. So, I am published. When it comes to writing books for a more general audience like novels, novellas, poems, short stories, etc. I am as unknown as they come with absolutely nothing anyone has read save this forum and perhaps a few family members...

So, am I a wannabe, a writer, or an author? (My self-deprecating thought process naturally leans toward the 1st of those three options

A fourth option is a gonnabe.

Jason said:

So, if the general consensus is that "author" is associated with being published, and writers are authors waiting to be published, here's a "what if" for ya:

I wrote several papers in college and grad school that made their way into scholarly publications. So, I am published. When it comes to writing books for a more general audience like novels, novellas, poems, short stories, etc. I am as unknown as they come with absolutely nothing anyone has read save this forum and perhaps a few family members...

So, am I a wannabe, a writer, or an author? (My self-deprecating thought process naturally leans toward the 1st of those three options

Click to expand...

Hey look - the glass is half full! LOL