I'm thoughtful today
Oct. 14th, 2004 04:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swatkatI wanted to write that post about archetypes in characterisation that has been eating my brain since, like, forever, but I ended up doing this instead.
I wanted to post this on the FFMB, but I'm not sure if I will – I don't know the OP and I wouldn't want to get into an argument with her (as well as another poster who agrees with her) and scare her off the board. The difference between an 'author' and a 'writer', well - when I was a kid (think really young, about 7 or 8 years old), I used to think 'author' was just a very nice way of saying 'writer', because the word sounds so much more impressive than a mere 'writer'; I always wrote 'author' in my answers and thought I was so smart because all my friends wrote 'writer'. And call me naive, but that's the impression I still have, that 'writer' and 'author' are two ways of saying the same thing. You know, pot-a-to, pot-a-to.
There is that age-old debate: does a person become an author only when he/she is published, and all amateur/non-published folks are actually just mere writers? Is writing fanfiction somehow less than original fiction? And is fanfiction just a stepping stone for published glory, and anyone else who doesn't *have* that intention in mind while writing their fics somehow lesser than those who do hope to be published authors one day? I've seen this debated to no end everywhere – fun debates, some flamewars, even (and people picking up their toys and leaving in a huff) – but none of it really holds any meaning for me, because to me, these questions themselves are quite pointless.
First, I don't think there's any differnece *at all* between a writer and an author, no matter what one says, so the idea that someone becomes an L337 Author (tm) only when they are published is, well, bullshit. Getting published is a great thing; I congratulate anyone who does get published, and my best wishes for anyone who hopes to become published one day. That said, just being published doesn't mean a thing – it took James Joyce *nine* years to find a publisher for Dubliners; Anne Rice gets published without an editor. As far as I'm concerned, even the teenie Mary Sue authors over at ff.net are Authors, even if they write very bad stories.
I don't understand why writing fanfiction should be something lower than writing origfic. So we're playing with someone else's chatacters – so what? Does this mean that fanfic authors can somehow get away by being less creative? What about the folks who spend days 'fixing' a plothole because TPTB couldn't be bothered doing it? And those who create elaborate alternate universes that are actually better than TPTB's half-baked plotlines? *None* of Shakespeare's plots *or* characters were his own – and he's still the greatest Author ever (note: not comparing. Just making a point).
And finally, the thing about fanfiction being the stepping stone to published glory: I'm sure there are people who do their fic writing with this in mind, but I think it is quite unfair to generalise anyone who *doesn't* have the intention to become a published author as someone who's not serious about their writing. There *are* people who don't want to get published: writing may just be a hobby – but someone writing as a hobby may not necessarily be any less serious than someone who wants to become a pro. An uncle of mine is an amateur wildlife photographer: I can't begin to tell you the amount of pains he undergoes to hone his skills and become a better photographer. And people do acknowledge this. Why should writing, writing *anything* at all, be different? A professor of mine writes mind-blowing essays. You know, the kind of essays that could easily find their place in a critical collection alongside all the Bradleys and Knights (dear God, when I grow up, can I write just like her?); and yet, when you ask her if she ever wishes to publish them, she will just shrug and say,"What for? I wrote it for you guys – I'm happy if you can put it to good use". And it's not like she doesn't work hard for them, it's not that she doesn't want praise – everyone wants praise, whether they admit it or not – just because getting published does not fall in her priority list doesn't make her, or anyone else like her, a lesser author. Not according to my standards, anyway.
Wow. That was long. And rant-like. *sheepish grin*
On a lighter note, I'm not one to make fun of people's appearances – but could Anne Rice look any more like Umbridge?
ETA:Keep the snark down, please. This isn't locked. *g*
I wanted to post this on the FFMB, but I'm not sure if I will – I don't know the OP and I wouldn't want to get into an argument with her (as well as another poster who agrees with her) and scare her off the board. The difference between an 'author' and a 'writer', well - when I was a kid (think really young, about 7 or 8 years old), I used to think 'author' was just a very nice way of saying 'writer', because the word sounds so much more impressive than a mere 'writer'; I always wrote 'author' in my answers and thought I was so smart because all my friends wrote 'writer'. And call me naive, but that's the impression I still have, that 'writer' and 'author' are two ways of saying the same thing. You know, pot-a-to, pot-a-to.
There is that age-old debate: does a person become an author only when he/she is published, and all amateur/non-published folks are actually just mere writers? Is writing fanfiction somehow less than original fiction? And is fanfiction just a stepping stone for published glory, and anyone else who doesn't *have* that intention in mind while writing their fics somehow lesser than those who do hope to be published authors one day? I've seen this debated to no end everywhere – fun debates, some flamewars, even (and people picking up their toys and leaving in a huff) – but none of it really holds any meaning for me, because to me, these questions themselves are quite pointless.
First, I don't think there's any differnece *at all* between a writer and an author, no matter what one says, so the idea that someone becomes an L337 Author (tm) only when they are published is, well, bullshit. Getting published is a great thing; I congratulate anyone who does get published, and my best wishes for anyone who hopes to become published one day. That said, just being published doesn't mean a thing – it took James Joyce *nine* years to find a publisher for Dubliners; Anne Rice gets published without an editor. As far as I'm concerned, even the teenie Mary Sue authors over at ff.net are Authors, even if they write very bad stories.
I don't understand why writing fanfiction should be something lower than writing origfic. So we're playing with someone else's chatacters – so what? Does this mean that fanfic authors can somehow get away by being less creative? What about the folks who spend days 'fixing' a plothole because TPTB couldn't be bothered doing it? And those who create elaborate alternate universes that are actually better than TPTB's half-baked plotlines? *None* of Shakespeare's plots *or* characters were his own – and he's still the greatest Author ever (note: not comparing. Just making a point).
And finally, the thing about fanfiction being the stepping stone to published glory: I'm sure there are people who do their fic writing with this in mind, but I think it is quite unfair to generalise anyone who *doesn't* have the intention to become a published author as someone who's not serious about their writing. There *are* people who don't want to get published: writing may just be a hobby – but someone writing as a hobby may not necessarily be any less serious than someone who wants to become a pro. An uncle of mine is an amateur wildlife photographer: I can't begin to tell you the amount of pains he undergoes to hone his skills and become a better photographer. And people do acknowledge this. Why should writing, writing *anything* at all, be different? A professor of mine writes mind-blowing essays. You know, the kind of essays that could easily find their place in a critical collection alongside all the Bradleys and Knights (dear God, when I grow up, can I write just like her?); and yet, when you ask her if she ever wishes to publish them, she will just shrug and say,"What for? I wrote it for you guys – I'm happy if you can put it to good use". And it's not like she doesn't work hard for them, it's not that she doesn't want praise – everyone wants praise, whether they admit it or not – just because getting published does not fall in her priority list doesn't make her, or anyone else like her, a lesser author. Not according to my standards, anyway.
Wow. That was long. And rant-like. *sheepish grin*
On a lighter note, I'm not one to make fun of people's appearances – but could Anne Rice look any more like Umbridge?
ETA:Keep the snark down, please. This isn't locked. *g*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I agree with you,
Date: 2004-10-14 12:47 pm (UTC)But then, I'm easy.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 02:49 pm (UTC)I think the biggest difference actually is the context you use the words in.
To start with, "write" - is a verb. "Author" is a noun. "Writer" is a nomialization of the verb "to write". "Authors"-- when used as a verb -- is a disgusting bastardization that should have been drowned at birth.
When we talk about a finished (how ever that might be defined) work that we have read, we talk about the author of the piece.
"Anne Rice, author of the Vampire Chronicles, blah, blah, blah." or "Teenie X, author of that fightful Mary Sue, blah, blah, blah."
When critically discussing a written work, again we talk about the author's intentions, background, methods, etc...Sure - some use 'writer' in this context, but it sounds wrong.
"The writer's voice is clear and strong....." doesn't (to me) imply the same specificity as "The author (of the piece we are talking about) has a strong and clear voice" though gramatically, both are fiine.
We talk about writers, on the other hand, when we are talking about the act of writing. "When I write, I play my favorite music, work in silence, etc..." or "When Anne Rice, author of the Vampire Chronicles, got rich and famous she ditched her editors, because she feels that whatever she writes is already perfect." "Famous novelists and fanficcers all write stories meant to be shared."
So to me - to get take the two words, which mean similar things but aren't actually interchangilbe in all contexts for gramatical reasons, and then want to parse some social implication for when you should use one noun and when you should use the other, strikes me as rather silly.
And I'm about as far from the grammar police brigade as you could get.
So - them's my thoughts. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 01:14 pm (UTC)"Author" is also a verb.
I once had a fascinating exchange with a transgender friend of mine - I said I was a "writer", she said she was an "authoress"!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 03:02 pm (UTC)I simply don't see a difference. Unless, perhaps, one is discussing poetry. I would say "an author produces a story" and "a writer writes stories". I don't know that *I* would use "author" to describe the person that writes poetry. On the other hand, I don't know why not... only that I wouldn't.
I *am* one of those writers with a long-term goal of getting published. But I don't know that I'd *ever* refer to myself as an "author", published or not. I have a hard time using "writer" for myself - I prefer to say I write. Somehow it's less... well, yeah, whatever. And because *I'm* uncomfortable with the label doesn't mean that every other writer out there shares my insecurities.
Anne Rice = Umbridge. Oh, yeah, baby!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 11:53 am (UTC)Do you think they could get her to play that part in the fifth movie? *eg*
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 03:03 pm (UTC)semantically I think I'm closer to ~delle than to Nell
Date: 2004-10-14 03:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 07:16 pm (UTC)Personally, I think they basically mean the same thing. I definitely don't think it's an insult to call a published author a "writer." I suppose in some situations it could be misleading, like if in whatever context the person thought you were saying you were published...but that can be cleared up and it works the same for author or writer. "Author" does have a weightier sound--heh, I supopse "storyteller" is the next one down. Sometimes people make that distinction too: "Well so-and-so is a good storyteller but she's not really a writer," meaning one person tells an engaging story and the other person is more into style (which could be an insult either way).
Anyway, the idea that fanfic must be a stepping-stone to published work is ridiculous. It's a separate, enjoyable activity that has a different appeal than writing original work, though there's a lot of crossover appeal between them. They employ many of the same creative muscles, and some different ones (as stupid as I think it is to suggest writing fanfic isn't writing, I'm also impatient when people try to claim there's no difference--of course it's different, that doesn't make it bad). There are original writers who started out writing fanfic or profic in other universes, and ones that didn't. With all the spaces on publishers' lists being taken up by bad books, obviously there are many great writers out there who are unpublished. There can't be so few in the world.
Sometimes I think people just really want some sort of objective marker of quality to feel secure, and that doesn't exist outside the writing itself. What does it mean to say that the author who is published is better than the one who is not, or that the fanfic writer with professional aspirations is better than the one without them? It's supposed to suggest the writing is better, but the proof of that is in the pudding. As you said, there are plenty of writers now considered great who took years to get published. There are also plenty of non-published writers who insist they're not published because their work isn't commercial enough, suggesting being unpublished is somehow better than being published, when really they are bad writers. The upshot is, while being published perhaps does suggest a certain degree of competency or at least some creativity, it may not the mark of a better writer one way or the other. For that you have to look at the work itself and judge by the individual.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 11:23 am (UTC)Personally, I think they basically mean the same thing. I definitely don't think it's an insult to call a published author a "writer." I suppose in some situations it could be misleading, like if in whatever context the person thought you were saying you were published...but that can be cleared up and it works the same for author or writer.
Yes, I agree, to both points. As
Well so-and-so is a good storyteller but she's not really a writer
I've seen that being used about JKR quite a number of times. *is a fangirl*
Sometimes I think people just really want some sort of objective marker of quality to feel secure
Yes, exactly. Like
and that doesn't exist outside the writing itself.
And that's something many people will not admit. As you said, being published is not the ultimate judge of creativity – unfortunately, that seems to be the accepted standard these days.
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 05:49 pm (UTC)Whistles away.....
Nell
But
Date: 2004-10-16 11:09 am (UTC)Swatkat
Re: But
Date: 2004-10-16 02:32 pm (UTC)In terms of the writing itself? Creativity or experimentation in expression - which in fiction and poetry and playwriting is accepted (even when it doesn't work) - is pretty much frowned on.
You don't want to go to read a FAQ, for example, and discover that it's been written in iambic pentameter. While you'd (might?) applaud the cleverness - you'd also be muttering under your breath because you just wanted the answer to your question, dammit.
Non-fiction writing is hard and demanding task, to be done well, and can be extremely rewarding - but the kind creativity that we (I?) usually associate with fiction writing isn't what you or your readers are seeking.
To the point that to say a piece of non-fiction was 'creative' is often to damn with faint praise. Because it means that the author failed to achieve their goal of convincing the reader of whatever it was. In reviews in my field, history, for example the construction usually goes something like this:
"producing a creative and innovative analysis that ultimately fails to convince...."
You definitely don't want to hear that your use of evidence was 'creative' or 'artful' - because it suggests that you've somehow hidden the gapping whole in your argument. Think of this one:
"through a creative reading of statistics, authors X and Y have demonstrated that the sun does indeed rise in the west."
I leave you to imagine the rest of that review!
Nell
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 07:26 pm (UTC)I've seen the discussion of which you speak. While I agree that there are some useful distinctions between the two words, I suspect that part of the conversation is being driven by the need, of some people, to "be" something they feel gives them some status: i.e., "I'm an Author, not a mere writer." I don't derive my sense of self-identity from writing activities, and so the distinction isn't as earthshakingly important to me.
As for whether one has professional aspirations or not -- that's an issue that affects more than fiction writing. I've seen it with friends who pursue music and art, as well. People who learn guitar are expected to want to be in a band; a friend of mine who is quite serious about voice lessons gets looked at askance because, at "her age," she's never going to be able to break into the music industry. Someone who takes up painting *must* want to have her work displayed in galleries, or else it's deemed a waste of time.
In the past, people used to entertain themselves more than they used to (in part because they had to, of course) -- today, everything is a commodity. If you can't sell what you do, then it has little value. Fanfic -- as a pursuit by serious people -- doesn't fit into this mode of thinking, which is why so many seem to feel the need to excuse it as merely a stepping stone to "real" authorship.
Oops, that's teach me not to pay attention while I type
Date: 2004-10-14 08:53 pm (UTC)That was meant to be "more than they do now." Ack.
oh this is a big kettle of fish
Date: 2004-10-14 09:06 pm (UTC)In my tiny part of the world, there's a very awkward relationship between "professional" and "amateur," in part because money has so little to do with it. Many performing artists don't make their living, or even a significant part of it, from their art, so they make their claim to professional status in other ways having to do with attitude or devotion. These qualities are much harder to quantify, so that the label "professional" is a slippery one. A colleague pointed out once that professional basketball players are much more accepting of players in a recreational league than visual artists are of what used to be called a "Sunday painter." Your comment about "entertaining ourselves" is a bit like the issue of the "Sunday painter" -- since the difference between him/her and the putative pro is so nebulous, it makes for tense relations.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 11:24 am (UTC)Oh, that's very interesting. Do you think the attitude that many 'professional' authors have towards amateur authors is derived from similar circumstances?
Swatkat
well
Date: 2004-10-16 02:17 am (UTC)Which is a fancy way of saying "yes."
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 12:30 am (UTC)Here via Q_Q
That's an excellent observation, and very astute. I agree with you. It's hard to justify pursuing art or creativity for one's own pleasure when you could be out there "selling your own work." The idea being that if it's original fic (as opposed to fanfic) it's better, and that if you sell your original story and make a pile of money your work must be best of all.
It's a sad commentary on our societal values that if it doesn't turn a profit, it's no good.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 01:44 am (UTC)That's a very interesting point. As one - as sk knows - that at an advanced age (I'm over 40) picked up ballet shoes with the intention of learning to dance en pointe...
Am I wasting my time? Obviously I'm never going to be a ballerina. But, I enjoy it and look forward to my twice-weekly classes. Hm.... sounds a lot like fanfic, doesn't it?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 11:23 am (UTC)Yes, you did. Go you! *g*
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 11:24 am (UTC)Yes, I'm quite surprised. And flattered. It's great to have such nice people come to chat, though. *g*
While I agree that there are some useful distinctions between the two words, I suspect that part of the conversation is being driven by the need, of some people, to "be" something they feel gives them some status: i.e., "I'm an Author, not a mere writer." I don't derive my sense of self-identity from writing activities, and so the distinction isn't as earthshakingly important to me.
I think you've nailed the driving force behind that conversation, and the reason why it irritated me to the point of this rant. I confess that it's difficult for me to understand their perspective. All I can see is someone trying to 'be something' by effectively slamming everyone else – regardless of their capabilities and the effort that they put in behind their writing – and that is quite annoying.
In the past, people used to entertain themselves more than they used to (in part because they had to, of course) -- today, everything is a commodity. If you can't sell what you do, then it has little value.
That's so right. Most people will not get that there are some folks out there who don't *want* to sell what they do.
Swatkat
A bit of literary scholarship and semantics...
Date: 2004-10-14 08:49 pm (UTC)Just wanted to point out that Shakespeare was not the greatest author ever, but the greatest writer. You see, he never wrote prose.
The word author is generally reserved for prose writers. Shakespeare was a playwright and a poet. Therein is the difference between a writer and an author--form.
Otherwise, a writer is a writer. Medium and subject matter does not exclude a person that writes from the big author club so long as they write prose.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 11:26 am (UTC)Mmm, one could argue that he *did* write prose, and that his plays contain some of the best prose ever written, but I definitely see what you mean. I had actually thought about it (for a tiny little moment), but I just couldn't resist using his name, because Shakespeare sounds so impressive, ya know? Just like Author. *wink*
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 08:54 pm (UTC)The issue of whether fanfiction is somehow lesser than original fic seems to me to be part of a larger argument over the definition of (so called) *real* literature. There's a large number of lit snobs who will declaim to the skies that even published authors who write in popular genres, such as fantasy, romance, western, aren't *real* writers, that unless the book is placed in stores in that shelf ambiguously labeled "Fiction", it's mere popular entertainment, not literature--and is therefore a lesser product.
Nowhere is this sentiment more obvious than in university creative writing programs, wherein most instructors will forbid students to write genre pieces. It's Literature or nothing.
The argument over the supposed superiority of original fiction over fanfiction seems part of the same thing. For some reason, people have the desire to rank writings as having greater or lesser worth based on the genre of the work rather than the skill of the author.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 12:35 am (UTC)Nowhere is this sentiment more obvious than in university creative writing programs, wherein most instructors will forbid students to write genre pieces. It's Literature or nothing.
I got the same attitude in an undergraduate creative writing course. I chose to write a historical piece. From the looks on some people's faces I might as well have dumped a pile of used kitty litter in the middle of the floor. The instructor was much nicer about it but even he said, "I don't like historicals. They're not litrachoor." And we were flat-out forbidden to write fanfic for the class (though I can understand that in a way if the instructor was not familiar with fanfic and had legal concerns).
The upshot was that I forced the whole class to
drink pig swillread my historical and I still got an "A." Ha.no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 01:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 11:25 am (UTC)I'm sure they do. They turn up their noses at JKR at least – it's slightly difficult to do the same with Tolkien or C.S.Lewis, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the attitude.
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 11:25 am (UTC)Oh god, I can't begin to tell you how many times I've had that argument – about the Harry Potter books, of course – with people from all sorts of backgrounds. Lit snobs, of course; but even a common reader will often consider such genre writing to be 'not literature', something that I find mind-boggling.
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 01:53 pm (UTC)- writing
- published writing
- critically acclaimed published writing
- non-genre writing
- anything put in the "literature" section of the bookshop
etc etc
no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 11:55 am (UTC)Only yesterday I went to a local bookstore - Jane Austen's books were kept in the 'romance' section, right alongside your regular bodice rippers. *headdesks*
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 12:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 01:22 pm (UTC)I once asked if I could include analysis of a Doctor Who TV tie-in novel in a postgrad essay. The lecturer dissuaded me - delightfully, not because it was somehow lesser fiction, but because he and the other markers would be unlikely to be familiar with the text - it would mean a lot of extra work for them just to mark one essay. There may be an element of this in creative writing courses where the lecturer is unfamiliar with genre fiction.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 01:10 pm (UTC)I'm a professional author, and usually use the word "writer" to describe myself, but obviously the label's not the real issue here. (Besides, I write TV tie-in novels, so many people consider me a fan fiction writer anyway :-).
There are differences between fanfic and professional writing. Pro writers have a number of advantages, such as pro betas in the form of editors, larger audiences, and advances. (I was able to switch from full- to part-time work at one point.) Where anyone can publish anything online or in their fanzine, pro fiction is selected from many possible manuscripts, and polished.
As you'll notice, I haven't included factors like talent, experience, originality, or TLC on that list. :-)
Like falling in love, getting published makes you think *everyone* should be doing it. :-) It's tempting to think of it as a "waste" when an obviously talented writer is only producing fanfic - you feel they deserve a bigger audience, and besides, so much utter crap gets professionally published, we need more good writers on the bookshelves. What's more, too many talented writers are too timid to give it a try, so it's natural to want to
pushencourage them in that direction. But not everyone *wants* to write for that wider audience, or to deal with the restrictions that the publishing industry will place on them. It took me a long time to understand that - that fanfic is not necessarily some sort of apprenticeship.I must confess that, as a newcomer to HP fandom, I have seen many defences of fanfic against charges of being "lesser" writing, but I haven't actually seen anyone say it was lesser writing. I don't think fanfic writers have any reason to feel defensive about their craft.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 04:36 pm (UTC)I'm a professional author, and usually use the word "writer" to describe myself, but obviously the label's not the real issue here.
Me too.
(Besides, I write TV tie-in novels, so many people consider me a fan fiction writer anyway :-).
Me too.:-)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 12:37 am (UTC)Ooooooooooo
Date: 2004-10-16 11:11 am (UTC)Sorry, couldn't resist. I was a huge fan.
Swatkat
Re: Ooooooooooo
Date: 2004-10-18 03:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 01:53 am (UTC)I'm completely in love with the idea of Loony Tunes novels!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 03:22 am (UTC)I must admit I loved writing Looney Tunes. Especially Daffy. Bugs is really hard.