In Defense of Writers


To contrast my last post of substance:

Everyone thinks they can write a book.  They can’t.  Everyone thinks they’ve got a story in ‘em that’s worth telling.  They don’t.  Half of the people who’ve even taken steps to become a writer fall into this category.  Probably more than half.  And I don’t just mean get a book published.  I mean write one.  And not even a good one that goes unnoticed.  I mean just finish one.  A bad one.  Most of you won’t do it.

It’s one way or the other with folks, but often enough I think it’s both.  Writers are, as we’ve covered, mystical figures who ride unicorns and drink the moon’s laughter.  And at the same time, everyone thinks they can be one.  I met Billy Collins a couple years ago, and he had (very roughly) this to say:

I was introduced to an accountant at a party.  We exchanged pleasantries, names.  When he recognized mine the accountant said, ‘why, my nine year old daughter is a poet.  She writes poetry all the time!’ And I said, ‘you know, that’s funny.  My six year old is an accountant.  He was playing with change just the other day.

The truth of the matter is that dabbling in something doesn’t make you a professional.  I’m interested in physics, but I’m not about to call myself a physicist.  Just the same, entertaining the idea, even sitting down to begin a story, does not make you a writer.  There is no hard and fast definition, no certain point at which you can say you are one.  But you ought to know when you’ve crossed it.  And it’s not even necessarily when you’ve finished a book.  I’m comfortable with calling myself a writer after having spent three years at it, getting a few pieces published, and finishing two books while working on a third and going to school for writing.  If you took away any two of those things, I’d probably not call myself a writer.

My thesis is this: I like colons in blog posts.

My thesis is this: while writing is a job, even just a job, it is not something you can claim as a title simply because its definitions are so liquid.  Furthermore, with more accuracy than any weatherman, I can say that you aren’t a writer.  It’s gonna rain, and you aren’t a writer.  Put down your pen and grab an umbrella.  Everyone thinks they can write a book, a lot of people say they will someday, but only writers do.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

6 Comments »

 
  • Brad Green says:

    The biggest differentiation between the non-writer and writer is that writers write. They write no matter what. All the rest is ancillary, I think.

  • courtney says:

    Again, this applies across the board. Love the thought process.

  • Kristan says:

    LOL to the Billy Collins anecdote!

    “SO TRUE” to this whole post.

  • Hannah Miet says:

    Amen.

    This actually makes me feel a lot better…

  • nicopolitan says:

    Thank you, sir, for emphasizing this important semantic point! Interestingly, it works inversely in music: those that actually know how to use a musical instrument do not call themselves musicians until they get on stage or record in a studio, but I suppose that as opposed to writing, that threshold is pretty clear.

    I’m wondering if there’s a way to make the writer’s threshold clearer. That would resolve a lot of ambiguity.

  • IntrigueMe says:

    This is a good post. Actually, they all are so far.
    I certainly don’t consider myself a writer by any means. I’m a blogger, but I am no writer!