When is a writer a "real" writer? ...

[AuntieEmma[$]]

(That sounds like a riddle, doesn't it? Like "Why did the chicken cross the street?")

----------------------------------
Just thinking about something from the other thread, a request for "real writers" to tell us what they've written.

No problem with the thread -- I'm definitely interesting in finding out what people have written.

But I winced at the term "real writers." And I'm not sure why. It has some negative connotations for me. Or maybe it's the flip side of it, the unreal writers, that has the negative connotations. Maybe it's the connotation that becoming a "real writer" is like having a second chance to grow up and become transformed -- that it's like a portal someone can pass through and emerge through on the other side into the promised land ...

I don't know what I'm talking about. Can someone help me out here and explain to me what I'm talking about?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Hmmm, thundering silence.

Gee, I thought it would be nice if someone could tell me what I'm talking about. Actually, I could use someone like that 24 hours a day, since I often don't have a clue about what I'm saying. But I guess it's not to be ...

Let me see if I can try and figure out what I'm talking about. I guess one thing is that there's no bright line between "real" writing and whatever you want to call writing that doesn't make it as "real." Is writing that's on Epinions real? Why or why not? What about on other websites? Does it matter if the websites pay or not? Is writing that appears in print necessarily more real than writing that is online? And does it matter, in print, if you were paid or not? If you were paid, does it matter how much? Is writing done while a student real? If a writer's work isn't published until after their death, were they a real writer while they were alive? Does it matter if they become famous after their death? If a book gets uniformly bad reviews, is it any less real? If you're Jonathan Franzen, and Oprah slaps her seal on your book jacket, does that diminish your realness, and if so by how much? Does the realness bestowed by the National Book Award cancel out the unrealness of being an Oprah pick? Can a writer self-identify as real, or can does their reality only exist in the eyes of others? If the latter, which others? Do the others have to be real themselves? Is a terrible published book more real than a fantastic unpublished book?

[Redlass]

I'm not ignoring you, really!

I have lots to say on this topic, but I have to finish getting my writing samples together for a contract I'm trying to get. (Which is also why I haven't responded to you in the free will thread yet.)

Wonderful thread to start, though!

[phoenixx]

I don't think of writing in terms of "real" and "not real". I figure there are these types of writers:

The personal, unpublished writer

The published but unpaid writer

That brass ring, the paid and published writer

Leslie <- who thinks any writing done, even in a letter or diary or email, is "real" writing and should be encouraged. If you love it, try and get published and paid, but that doesn't make your writing any more or less "real"...

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by Redlass
I'm not ignoring you, really!

I have lots to say on this topic, but I have to finish getting my writing samples together for a contract I'm trying to get. (Which is also why I haven't responded to you in the free will thread yet.)

Wonderful thread to start, though!

Heh, thanks. BTW, what I said wasn't directed at anyone in particular, or even at anyone not in particular -- more at the universe in general for having egregiously neglected to provide me with a translator who could make some sense out of what I babble.

But I'm outta here too. Just remembered -- ack!! -- that I have to go vote. Six state initiatives, seven city initiatives, seventeen (!!) primary races. Ack, ack, ack, ack ...

[THMeeks]

I think one could get really deep on this whole "real writer" definition thing. You know - "If a writer writes something in the forest, but no one is there to read it, does it make a difference?"

I say the real writers are those of us obsessively pulled toward the keyboard, no matter what the final reward. Other symptoms include mentally composing stories, reviews, or essays, etc. as you go about your daily life. Have you had to dash from the room in the middle of a movie to find pen and paper to jot down notes? If you find yourself narrating your own life in third person, this, too, may be a sign. ("She paused to watch the birds perched on her back fence, watched them peeking at her through the window as she washed dishes instead of filling up the empty bird feeder. They looked puzzled.") Do you find it difficult to sleep at night because your mind has suddenly been taken over by characters from your latest short story? I could go on and on, but I think you all understand what I'm saying.

What's that wonderful quote? Something to the effect that professional writers (aka real ones) are simply amateurs who kept at it. I love that.

Terrisa

P.S. AuntieEmma, when you find that translator, be sure to send him over here. I could use him, too!

[Redlass]

I think I can understand where the coinage "real writers" was born. It was born out of the frustration professional writers often feel when what they do gets discounted because nearly the entire populations of industrialized countries can write.

Let me take an example. You're at a cocktail party (OK, those aren't very common, but work with me ).

Yolanda Yakalot: Pleasure to meet you, darling. What do you do for a living?
Sandy Stranger: I'm a nurse.
Yolanda: Oh, how wonderful! I am too!
Sandy: Really? That's great. Where do you work? I wonder if we went to school together.
Yolanda: Oh, I didn't go to school for it. But I've put lots of bandages on my kids and given my husband cough medicine when he's ill.

Scenario 2:

Billina Gates: It's such a relief to get out and be social. I've been tied up behind my computer for ages. I just got done revamping our corporation's intranet and creating a proprietary program for our managers to track overseas tariffs with.
Matthew Masterly: Oh, you're a computer programmer too? So am I--I just designed my first Web page. It's a collage of pictures of my dog, Fluffy.

We'd all think that Yolanda and Matthew were pretty ridiculous, or at least presumptuous. No one would think the same about writers. Someone who treats writing as their profession--dedicating years of schooling, training, experience, etc.--is often looked upon as no different than the person who only scribbles poetry on napkins while waiting for their bill at a restaurant.

So sometimes writers get a little prickly.

But, no, I don't think you have to be published to be a "real" writer. A writer doesn't become a writer simply because of the recognition of a commercial agency. However, there also has to be more dedication than simply sitting down once or twice a year and writing a few paragraphs.

It's the difference, perhaps, between those who make writing a profession and those for whom it is an amusing, occasional past-time.

When they suffer for their art and can show you the scars.

[Redlass]

Ah, but is writing an art or just a craft?

(sorry, wandering off topic)

[lambchops]

I have been a personal, unpublished writer. I have been a paid, yet relatively emotionless journalist. The paid 'me' was not satisfied while the personal writer 'me' was totally satisfied.

I guess when the two can come together--When I can be published and personal--will be when I consider myself a real writer. When you consider yourself real is what is important. Others will likely believe that you are a writer well before you do yourself.

Did that help?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by Redlass
]I think I can understand where the coinage "real writers" was born. It was born out of the frustration professional writers often feel when what they do gets discounted because nearly the entire populations of industrialized countries can write.

Let me take an example. You're at a cocktail party ...

Yolanda: Oh, I didn't go to school for it. But I've put lots of bandages on my kids and given my husband cough medicine when he's ill....

Matthew Masterly: Oh, you're a computer programmer too? So am I--I just designed my first Web page. It's a collage of pictures of my dog, Fluffy....

So sometimes writers get a little prickly.

Yes, absolutely. I agree, the term "real writers" is meant to distinguish people from the Yolandas and Matthews of the world, and it's meant to indicate that people described that way deserve to be taken seriously. But ...

Someone who treats writing as their profession--dedicating years of schooling, training, experience, etc.--is often looked upon as no different than the person who only scribbles poetry on napkins while waiting for their bill at a restaurant.... there also has to be more dedication than simply sitting down once or twice a year and writing a few paragraphs.

It's the difference, perhaps, between those who make writing a profession and those for whom it is an amusing, occasional past-time.

I think there are many counter-examples.

There was another thread here where we were discussing who we thought were the best contemporary short-story writers. Grouch mentioned Grace Paley, and I agreed.

But her entire life's work consists of three or four very slender story collections. And she's in her 70's so she's had a long life. There must have been years, perhaps decades at a time when she didn't write anything at all (though I do like to imagine she may have scribbled on a napkin every now and then).

Her reputation -- not just "real," but "real and important" doesn't rest on how much she wrote or how often she published, but on how very good the few things that she wrote were.

Most of her life, as I recall (I heard her speak, but it was years ago, and my memory is atrocious) was spent as a housewife (she's from the era when that word was used) and as a political activist.

I do understand what you mean about distinguishing the dabbler from the professional. But I'm not sure if it makes any more sense to call writers "professional" than it does to call them "real." In fact, I think those two terms may essentially be synonyms, so that we may be back to restating the original problem.

I disagree that "dedicating years of schooling, training, experience, etc." is necessary for a writer to be either "real" or "good." Some people hit their stride right out of the gate -- Norman Mailer comes to mind -- doing significant work in their late teens or early twenties, and then for the rest of their lives they go downhill, never again doing work quite as good as they did when they first started out.

I understand why it would be useful to fit writing into the model of the professions, but I think it's an uncomfortable fit.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

A few more rambling thoughts ...

dedicating years of schooling, training, experience, etc.... dedication

Those things are important in the professions. If you go to a dentist to have some complicated, tricky procedure done, and when you get there you find out that they just got out of dental school a week ago, you may be tempted to bolt before they get a chance to say "Open wide."

And dedication counts too. If the dentist decides to take thirty years off and then returns to practice, or if they're slack about doing their homework, not bothering to read the dental journals, they're not going to be up on the latest advances and techniques.

But writing doesn't really change, at least not as quickly as something like dentistry, and experience and practice don't necessarily make a writer better.

To go back to the Grace Paley example: All that matters is the end result -- the completed stories. How she wrote them is less important. She may have spent years or decades when she didn't write at all (as I very vaguely recall from the talk I heard, I think that's what actually happened) -- or, she may have been writing constantly, 12 hours a day, every single day without a break, and the reason her output was so low was because she was constantly starting stories then ripping them up because they didn't meet her standards.

To the reader, it doesn't matter.

I realize I've been using fiction writers as my examples here, and maybe it's different for non-fiction. Certainly education may be more important for non-fiction writers -- it helps if they have a good education in the field that they're writing about, although I still think even there it's not an absolute necessity. And for freelance non-fiction writers, professionalism can be important -- it would help, I think, to establish a reputation for being reliable and also, at least in some situations, for being able to handle a high volume of work, which would include devoting a significant amount of time to it. But I don't know much about that aspect of things and I'm just guessing.

[realtraveller]

Certainly volume of material has nothing to do with it.

Harper Lee and Margaret Mitchell wrote just one book apiece. But they are classics.

Not getting published in your lifetime has nothing to do with it.

The man who wrote A Confederacy of Dunces committed suicide when his book was rejected again and again. His mother had it published after his death. In 1980 it won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.

(BTW, I would recommend as a confidence builder, a little book I picked up on the Bargain table at Borders. It's called "Rotten Reviews and Rejections" published by Pushcart Press. You wouldn't believe the great literature and best sellers which have been turned down in the most condescending, snide and downright nasty ways)

A better word for "real writer" would be "professional writer". To be a "professional writer" you have to make money at it.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
(BTW, I would recommend as a confidence builder, a little book I picked up on the Bargain table at Borders. It's called "Rotten Reviews and Rejections" published by Pushcart Press.

Oh, I love those books!!! (I say "books" in the plural because there are a number of different collections out along those same lines.)

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
The man who wrote A Confederacy of Dunces committed suicide when his book was rejected again and again. His mother had it published after his death. In 1980 it won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction....

A better word for "real writer" would be "professional writer". To be a "professional writer" you have to make money at it.

But how would you characterize the guy who wrote "A Confederacy.." while he was still alive? He couldn't have been a "professional writer" by your definition, while he was alive, because he didn't earn any money then from his writing. So we're back to riddles again.

It's not that I don't make judgments about writing and writers. I do it all the time. While I'm reading, I'm constantly thinking, "Oh, this person really knows how to write," or "Yuck! This person couldn't write their way out of a paper bag." I do that with everything that I read -- just as much with published books as with Epinions' reviews.

But these are subjective judgments, and there's something so concrete about calling a writer "real" or "professional" -- it implies that there's an objective judgement there, something that everyone can agree on, just as we could all agree (to go back to Redlass' cocktail party) that nurses are "professionals" if they have nursing degrees and licenses, and not "professionals" if they don't.

[pisces]

Hmmm. Isn't writing more like a trade, than a profession? Sort of like something you apprentice at until you become good enough to do with confidence.

It is like a craft, the way acting is. There are many actors who don't have fine arts degrees, necessarily. But somehow, they have been able to practice their craft, become good at it, and the public, however many people that is, has taken notice.

I don't know that money is always the determining factor. There are many actors who do Summer Stock and volunteer Theater who aren't well-known but who I would otherwise consider professional actors because they've been doing it awhile and honed their craft.

Not all professional actors are stars. Some of them get paid very little, if anything at all. But they love to act, have self-confidence, and have refined and practiced their trade for many years.

I think you've either built up the skill or you haven't. I think you can have a skill, be professional at that skill, but not necessarily be gainfully engaged in that skill in a money-making operation. Having a profession, being skilled at a profession doesn't always mean becoming a star. Getting published and making money is a whole other thing apart from simply having the professional skills.

[brian_igo]

A Correction: "A Confederacy of Dunces" was accepted for publication while Ken Toole was alive-by Simon and Schuster, no less. Toole withdrew the book over minor changes his editor wanted. He did become more depressed after this and commited suicide three years later. But the demons were paranoia and manic delusions, not a rejection letter.


Brian

[THMeeks]

But the demons were paranoia and manic delusions, not a rejection letter.

Many writers, whether considered real or otherwise, suffer from demons of this sort, or their close cousins of depression and alcoholism. Several notable names spring to mind. Ernest Hemingway, Anne Sexton, John Cheever.

Learning to accept rejection is one of the hardest parts of writing. (You can read all my thoughts about that in my essay, "Ambushed," at The Writer's Lounge). I can see how repeated rejection could just drive a person right over the edge.

Isn't writing more like a trade, than a profession? Sort of like something you apprentice at until you become good enough to do with confidence.

I think this is an interesting point. Even if you have an MFA, you still have to study people who've succesfully explored the craft/art/skill/profession - whatever we want to call it. Even if you are not in a classroom, if you are not reading more than you are writing, you are probably not writing as well as you could. I've always considered writing an art, like acting or painting.

Terrisa

[realtraveller]

Originally posted by brian_igo
A Correction: "A Confederacy of Dunces" was accepted for publication while Ken Toole was alive-by Simon and Schuster, no less. Toole withdrew the book over minor changes his editor wanted. He did become more depressed after this and commited suicide three years later. But the demons were paranoia and manic delusions, not a rejection letter.


Brian

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

The misinformation came from "Rotten Reviews and Rejections" by the Pushcart Press.

[brian_igo]

Thanks, RT. Like some other "real" writers we've heard about recently, I was too pressed for time the other day to footnote my work.

During research for a travel story on New Orleans I wrote in 1991, I found a series in the New Orleans Times-Picayune on the life of Ken Toole written in 1986, I believe. Yes, as a young man Ken Toole wrote a wonderful book; no, it was not published; and yes, he by carbon monoxide poisoning. But the events were connected by only the thinnest of threads.

As early as age three, Toole's mother was telling everyone who would listen that her only child was going to be the next Orson Welles. A would-be singer and actress herself, Mrs. Toole began coaching her son and driving him to fulfill his destiny.

Anyone who has read Confederacy knows Toole had immense talent as a young man, as Welles had. Unfortunately, Mrs. Toole was not Mrs. Welles. It is noteworthy that Confederacy was written during a short stint in the Army, the only period in his life when he escaped her constant presence. He submitted it to Simon and Schuster before being discharged, and by accounts of friends who were there was shocked when it was accepted.

His mother, according again to relatives and friends, was the driving force in refusing any changes by S&S. We all know that revision is a fact of life for every writer, but Mrs. Toole did not believe this stranger had the place to question the work of her genius son. Toole withdrew the book and returned the advance soon after. He returned to teaching and never again undertook an attempt at writing. He began to suffer from paranoia attacks, beliving that he was the target of an assassin squad, and in 1969 parked his Rambler in the country and ran a length of vaccum cleaner hose from the tailpipe to the drivers window.

Thanks for your patience, but I feel the real story of Ken Toole has everything to do with the subject at hand. He did not die because he was a writer. He did not fall to the stereotyped writer's demons of drug and drink. He understood that a first-time novelist being picked up by S&S was, at that time, like being tapped on the shoulder by the Pope.

He died because of demons planted by a parent with unrealistic expectations. Had it not been writing it would have been something else-Lord knows it doesn't take too many issues of People to find a supposed prodigy who caved under the pressure.

So what is a real writer? Ken Toole wrote as fine a book as I've read, but if that is the membership for the Real Writer's club, I'll pass. Do you have to drink like Hemingway or screw like Tennessee Williams to be considered a real writer? Nope, but I know some who use that as their excuse.

This is a peculiar craft we have. In no other field that I can think of is the division between professional and wannabe so hotly contested. Hell, forget if any of us are real writers. There are more than a few who believe Steve King isn't a real writer despite all the evidence to the contrary, and consider Frank McCourt a fluke voice from the wilderness.

Yet for all the honors we would place on that job title, what would your reaction be if your daughter said she was marrying an aspiring writer. Or an established writer but with few commercial prospects? Has anyone here ever honestly told a new aquaintance they were a writer? If you can pull off a passing resemblance to John Grisham or Danielle Steel you might get a good reaction. Lacking those, confessing my avocation has been a wonderful tool to make people shut up and go away. They act like you are a vampire wanting to suck their life away for your stories or-worse-they know it means damned little money and endless hours trying to get this amazing story in your head onto a piece of paper.

There is a school of thought that writers are born. There is another that says writing is the flower of hardship or such crap. Lost inbetween is the possibility that it might just be a job.


Brian