I'm thoughtful today

[swatkat]

I 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*

Comments

I agree with you,

[debbiebiv.livejournal.com]

I really don't think there is a difference between an author and a writer. Least not to me.

But then, I'm easy.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I may post a version of this thought on the FFMB as well, but um yeah.

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. ;)

[delle.livejournal.com]

and you were both a great deal more eloquent and tactful than I was on the board.

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!

semantically I think I'm closer to ~delle than to Nell

[sk56.livejournal.com]

I often use the words interchangeably, but mostly because I dislike excessive repetition. But I'm not sure that's what the original question is about. I think she's really asking about the difference between "writing for yourself" or "writing for a public" -- all her comments about her experiences while writing (going into a kind of "fugue state") and concerns about feedback after posting make it sound like she's worried that she doesn't fit into the categories (writer=introvert/author=extrovert) that she mentions at the beginning. And since I think it's pretty much a false division, I can't get excited about the issue.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Here from the Daily Snitch.

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.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Hey, Swatkat...you've been linked on the Daily Snitch. Muy impressive, my dear.

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.

A bit of literary scholarship and semantics...

[majrgenrl8.livejournal.com]

Hi...coming in from the Daily Snitch

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.

[blackletter]

Here from the Daily Snitch

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.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

IMNSHO, If you write, then you're a writer. It doesn't matter whether you write fanfic, poetry that you never show anyone else, or Nobel-winning novels. Nor does it matter whether you crave hard cash, or are writing for sheer enjoyment and self-expression, as part of a community, or to get your rocks off. :-)

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 push encourage 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.