The Difference Between A Writer And Someone Who Wants Everyone To Think They’re Some Romanticized Notion Of “Writer”

THANK YOU, Brandon Scott Gorrell.  THANK YOU.

dang….. cool

This is probably a really avant-garde concept and all, but how about we just let people BE what they want to BE?

Well played.  I’m glad my post got you all hot and bothered enough to write something really good.   Let’s keep the dialogue rolling.  That’s what it’s all about.

I’m guessing you’ve never actually read Nietzsche.

this is the best thing i’ve read on here in a while.

Thank you. I feel better now.

…and then I got bored and stopped reading.

yes! this is too good

 Um…

basically, don’t be an asshole.

if you don’t know how to not be an asshole, you’re probably an asshole.

bad guess

I felt like I was going to have an anxiety attack reading this, maybe I don’t like confrontation. But I do agree with the point you made. 

Bold move, Battle Star Galactica.

no

So, no one who writes on Thought Catalog, including myself, is a writer.

DFW’s last name is Wallace, not Foster Wallace.  A writer is a pedant, goddammit!

It’s not a dialogue. That rebuttal ended the conversation. 

Fuck yes. Another thank you from me. 

Why is everyone so afraid of cliches? It’s so cliche.

I’m hot and bothered by this post. 

#blueballs

oh god I love rebuttals 

Thank you for this, the piece to which this is a response made me feel horrible for writing a bunch of copy at a magazine internship instead of the next great novel. 

Did I say something confusing?  I mean that.  I’m still sort of shocked that my post elicited the reaction it did, but I’d rather get a strong response than none at all.  It was a thought exercise, written in the voice of one kind of writer, and it’s always interesting for me to see how many people missed the lesson about not confusing authors with narrators.  The narrator of my post is into her own writing, true.  I’m still working on mine.  I’m going to have to write something goofy about kittens crawling into hamster balls next time (which I can totally get behind, by the way), so you don’t think I’m some pretentious jerk.  ;o)

You should totally delete her post.

“Finally, a writer doesn’t write an article that essentially delineates
himself as a “writer” by offering as evidence a multi-paragraph stream
of exclusionary alliteration probably-unintentionally balanced with
enough haughtiness and surface-level-literary-seeming-ness via
corpse/decay metaphors (or whatever) so for the purpose of striking that
fine chord in which one receives a relatively large amount of Facebook
shares, retweets and hits (i.e. becomes “mass-market) while saying that a
“writer” is not someone who does that, because writers generally try to
avoid premise-level contradictions.”

Does a writer know how to write concisely? Because, god damn, that is one long ass sentence.

true. I like the common speak for common people, bit. I didn’t agree with that comment in the other ‘writer’ piece. Writer’s write.

true. I like the common speak for common people, bit. I didn’t agree with that comment in the other ‘writer’ piece. Writer’s write.

Lol win

Lol win

Gotta’ pay them bills. No guilt there.

This is really good and the other one is reallyreallyREALLY awful.

AMEN…(writing copy for a cruise catalog as we speak)

elements of the original post resonated with me. elements of your post resonated with me. surprise! you’re both writers.

No, neither is good and neither is awful. They’re both opinions

Heh. Burned. 

“A writer is no one. A writer is a human being…”
They’re also usually not so big on violating the rule of non-contradiction. 

i can’t relate to your personality/writing

This post is matched in its mind-bending badness only by the other post. 

I disagree with your concept of ‘writer’.  And you contradict yourself by writing this piece.  But contradiction is fine.  One last thing: you forgot translators.

I disagree with your concept of ‘writer’.  And you contradict yourself by writing this piece.  But contradiction is fine.  One last thing: you forgot translators.

that’s what I asked the guys who teamed the last space shuttle, but they wouldn’t let me on because I didn’t have the right qualifications. but goddamnit, I WANT to BE an astronaut.

that’s what I asked the guys who teamed the last space shuttle, but they wouldn’t let me on because I didn’t have the right qualifications. but goddamnit, I WANT to BE an astronaut.

I think you all take yourself way too seriously

I like this. I don’t know that these are the only qualifications that define a ‘writer’, but I appreciate the definition of a human being that can see through vast quantities of bullshit and identify with the human condition.

Woah, my name is also Greg and I was going to post something to this effect too. I must be a writer (“writer”?) because it looks like I have a telepathic link to forms of written expression! 

You can still be an astronaut. All you need is a few million dollars and the ruskies will be glad to take you up. 

As someone working at a publishing agency, studying writing at a reputed “writing” school, and networking with writers in my personal and professional life all, all, all, all the time, god fucking bless you for this, and the absolute hell with the other article. I certainly agree with what you say about copywriting, editing, technical writing, and so on, but to address what you say about authors & those we typically think of as “writers”:

So, so many writers fall into this disgusting trap of seeing “being a writer” as occupying a position somehow separate from “being a person,” and act as though their thoughts are somehow apart from (or, God forbid, above) those of people who do not write (or act, or paint, or design, etc.). Nothing so immediately compromises my respect or personal liking of a would-be author as the capacity to partake in such incredible and egotistical self-delusion, to say nothing of the willingness and desire to broadcast these opinions. 

In my humble and unqualified opinion, the mark of a good, talented, fine writer (with all this business about “one who writes” left off) is not the distinction or the inaccessibility of their thoughts, but rather the outrageous normality of their thoughts and their capability to put those thoughts to page. Writing isn’t about seeing the world in a way other people can’t imagine, it’s about understanding and communicating, an earnest desire to feel what other people are feeling and to remind them that other people are feeling the same. The more a writer prides himself on how “out-there” he is, the more he expresses how insane or unrelatable his thoughts are, the more he tries to separate himself from others, to say “I am THIS way and you are THAT way,” the harder he makes his own job. 

Both of you are right and make valid points. I had to rush off after submitting my ‘Like!’ comment to Eliot’s post and wanted to add the following: The post is pretentious to a degree, but that doesn’t quell its truth … particularly as it relates to a certain kind of writer… and, let’s be honest, those of us who appreciate forums like “Thought Catalog” tend to gravitate towards and aspire to (consciously or otherwise) the kind of writing that Eliot described. Some of my writing is high-fulootin (misspelled?) and I snicker a little at myself sometimes. Alternately, a lot of what I write is (purposefully) accessible – while the majority probably falls somewhere in between. In other words, there’s room for everyone in the sandbox :D

If you want to claim that your piece was composed by a fictional narrator for the purpose of a “thought exercise,” that’s fine, but you don’t get to turn around and go, “Ha! Wasn’t that narrator I invented crazy? Just kidding, I’m totally on y’alls side, go Team Us” as it feels a lot like backpedaling while trying to save face.

content of either article aside, this was a level-headed and classy response. well done. 

PLEASE, MORE BEBE ZEVA AND FEWER “WRITERS”! Please.

You can’t really get away with claiming that you weren’t writing in your own voice if you simultaneously claim that people “missed the lesson”. Thought Catalog doesn’t tend to publish fiction; you either meant it or you didn’t.

I can’t relate to your personality/writing either, and trying to disown your own work while simultaneously claiming that people just don’t get it alienates me further. If we “missed the lesson” it’s because of your failure to convey it. If you’re eliciting a “strong response” it’s because it came across as arrogant self-congratulation. Sorry Eliot, but if you’re going to write an article like that you should at least have the hamster balls to stand behind it.

“ it’s always interesting for me to see how many people missed the lesson about not confusing authors with narrators.”

Sure, that’s true in fiction and poetry and some experimental non-fiction. But when you write an expository piece philosophizing on what it means to be a writer, people will generally assume that the voice and the views it espouses are your own.

Agree, wholeheartedly.

Man I was wondering which on of TC’s writers, was going to come out swinging against that other article. Good job.

Networking isn’t writing, though.  It’s marketing yourself.  It needn’t (and one could make a very convincing argument that it shouldn’t) play a role in one’s identity as a writer.  This post, and your response start to lose me when you begin attributing such obviously non-writing activities to the ‘real’ writer.  I’m not saying it degrades the writing or the writer’s goal.  But networking isn’t writing.  It’s a wholly other activity, albeit one related to writing.

No, Brandon Scott Gorell, a writer is not necessarily someone who found their talent so lacking and their drive so deficient that they had to settle with writing shitty copy and annoying, self-contradicting screeds as an editor at Thought Catalog.

The other article is bad for the same reasons that this is bad. Both are pretentious and presumptive. Yours is worse only because it is twice as arrogant while pretending not to be, and twice as ironic in trying to define the meaning of a writer amid run-on sentences, sentence fragments, and other affronts to basic rules of grammar. 

That’s fine.  You don’t have to believe me.  And why should you?  I’ll admit it: I’ve always got my fingers crossed behind my back. 

BSG’s piece sort of proves my point, though.  All of these passionate commentors will swear up and down that his is the better piece.  Awesome.  But if we want to have a dick-measuring contest with our Facebook shares, you’ll see that the “lowest common denominator” (calm down, just a reference to a tag that one of the editors attached to my piece) felt more compelled to share mine.  It’s not what I was after, but it’s what happened.  Interestingly enough, the TC piece of mine of which I am most proud, “A Love Letter From My Hands To Yours” (written in the voice of a narrator for realz!), has gotten the least share/like/tweet traction.  And the worst one, “An Open Letter From Girls Like Me To Guys Like You,” has been shared over 700 times and is all over Tumblers and blogs and what have you.  It’s all very cyclical and interesting and I’m enjoying watching this all unfold.

right on’ guest!

Tumblrs*

The premise of the article is that anyone who dwells too much on being identified as a writer is pretentious, and not a “real” writer. 
Then it goes on to define ‘writer’ in such a way that the author can claim the identity…and not those other “writers”. 
I bet Shakespeare et al., while they may have thought a lot about what being a writer means, spent very little time trying convince others (and themselves?) that “no…no..really…I’m a true writer, and everyone else is a douche.”

the premise is that a writer tries to connect with a reader, not exclude them.

“A writer wrote the small print on the back of your Colgate and got paid an annual salary of $75,000 a year doing just that.” How do I apply for said job?

also the author never identified himself as a writer, the only place he’s self-referential is at the end where he calls himself a ‘human being’

That’s certainly fair, and I didn’t intend to portray “real” writers as those who network. The only reason I brought up networking is that I meet an awful lot of people who self-identify as writers, and so encounter a lot of different permutations of the label. I don’t exactly believe that networking shouldn’t play a part in writing careers (as it sounds awfully close to a “writers oughtn’t stoop” argument, which doesn’t sit well with me), but I definitely do not see it as an integral component of “being a writer.” Someone who writes and is on a first-name basis with triple-digits in the industry is as much as writer as someone who hasn’t had those opportunities, and arguing otherwise, in my opinion, conflates privilege with talent.

Can I be an asshole for a second?
Ok, when you list authors dramatically by their ‘last’ name, saying ‘Tzu’ means nothing. Maybe you’re referring to Lao ‘Tzu’ or Sun ‘Tzu,’ but that isn’t how you do it.
In classical Chinese the 子 (zi, but spelled as ‘tzu’ in the outdated romanization systems) preceded by the surname just means philosopher. Sun Tzu just means ‘the philosopher named Sun’ and Lao Zi is the same. 

Ok, thanks, done now.

Before deleting his own: a Literary murder-suicide!

Here are my two cents:

A writer, in it’s most literal form, is someone who writes.

If you want to get more specific about it, a writer is generally considered to be a professional and by that definition, a writer is someone who gets paid to write.

As far as I am concerned, any other detail regarding what it is to be a ‘writer’ is considered subjective and therefore the definition has an infinite amount of possibilities, none of which are objectively correct or incorrect.

There seems to be a lot of discussion around how many Facebook Likes a blog post receives. For those of you concerned about these kinds of metrics, I highly suggest you read this blog post by Dave Pell:

http://tweetagewasteland.com/2011/05/i-dont-care-if-you-read-this-article/

Well said. I especially like this quote: “A writer is a human being who makes a living by successfully communicating ideas on paper/screen and/or moves her readers into emotional states with her words, nothing more.” 

he/she mentioned networking once? wtf are you on about? shut the fuck up, faggot

Look for the title ‘Copywriter’ in the job description. If it’s Colgate you want to work for, here would be a good start:

http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/Corp/WorkWithUs/HomePage.cvsp

asshole

tell em why you mad though

more simply put, a writer is a job description. in the same way a plumber is a plumber and a doctor is a doctor and a lawyer is a lawyer. 

*falootin’

Man, really glad this little spat broke out today. Otherwise it is a seriously SLOW day for interesting TC content.

Comeback of the century. 

BSG – 

i am seriously impressed with the work i’ve been seeing from you recently. it’s cerebral and profesh. keep it up. 

— KMH

No, Carly, this is much better, because despite the “affronts to the basic rules of grammar” (which are mostly done for effect, e.g. when he lists lots of writers in a run-on sentence) this is much more lucidly written and takes the completely reasonable and non-pretentious stance that a writer is someone who uses the composition of words to make a living. Trying to set oneself apart from those who “write shitty copy” by claiming to be in a special class of sticky-minded savants is a whole lot more annoying than this article. Also, yes, as much as it may annoy you, the person who writes the copy on toothpaste is a writer–and yes, necessarily. They write. There’s nothing really arrogant about this either because Brandon isn’t trying to set himself or any group of writers to which he belongs as special or better than any other writers.

“The post is pretentious to a degree, but that doesn’t quell its truth … particularly as it relates to a certain kind of writer… and, let’s be honest, those of us who appreciate forums like “Thought Catalog” tend to gravitate towards and aspire to (consciously or otherwise)”

I think that’s a great point.  The writer that Eliot Rose is the somewhat same writer that Bukowski lovers like.  Hemingway.  The tortured, eloquent soul.  Maybe Rose’s writer was a caricature at best/worst but I think it was a fair drawing of a *particular* writer.  And even if Rose’s own wording may have been more colorful fan Charles or Ernest would’ve chosen, I don’t think she was picking a writer’s word choice, rather their techniques, thoughts, and methods.

Wow this is fantastic.  Serious vocab used without a trace of pretense.  And a sentiment I can get behind.  Dope stuff.

Wow this is fantastic.  Serious vocab used without a trace of pretense.  And a sentiment I can get behind.  Dope stuff.

Wow this is fantastic.  Serious vocab used without a trace of pretense.  And a sentiment I can get behind.  Dope stuff.

Wow this is fantastic.  Serious vocab used without a trace of pretense.  And a sentiment I can get behind.  Dope stuff.

While well written, I kinda feel like this post screams artistic insecurity or I AM NOT PRETENTIOUS SEE?! LOOK HOW UNPRETENTIOUS I AM.

Solid stuff, as always!

Woah! Bitterness abounds from both sides of the aisle. 

Who doesn’t occasionally fantasize  about the café and brandy Algonquin lifestyle
of yesteryear? Instant boner. Do the gaggle of dissenters not smell a hint of
pontificatory indulgence sprinkled throughout the life and works of  the literary greats we suck the D of?

Did you not play with legos as a kid?
There’s a certain pure pleasure to be reaped from the “pretentious” process of
organizing all things multi-syllabic. Is one a poseur—forcing (feigned?) shows
of intelligence—simply because they enjoy playing with words generally left
inside at recess?

On the other, when a douche feels they need the heightened pretense, when they
write to feel superior, to alienate and build the glittering veneer, then they
become a Dolly Parton—all bust and no balls.

With a glass of red and the right frame
of mind, Rose’s shit is the shit. And the shape my work often takes (and the
indulgent state I sometimes like to find myself). While Brandon’s writing smacks
of fresh modernity, of cool crass “I’m badass without even trying,” which, of
course, he is trying (and so are all of you. Just not I). There’s no question Brandon is a quicker, punchier writer. But Rose’s passion and emotion (and fluff) is, in dosage, delicious. (Yes, I used delicious.)

 Let’s all crack a bottle of merlot, hold
hands, and quit pissing on each other with our (naturally) extra large peens.

Woah! Bitterness abounds from both sides of the aisle. 
Who doesn’t occasionally fantasize  about the café and brandy Algonquin lifestyle of yesteryear? Instant boner. Do the gaggle of dissenters not smell a hint of pontificatory indulgence sprinkled throughout the life and works of  the literary greats we suck the D of?
Did you not play with legos as a kid? There’s a certain pure pleasure to be reaped from the “pretentious” process of organizing all things multi-syllabic. Is one a poseur—forcing (feigned?) shows of intelligence—simply because they enjoy playing with words generally left inside at recess?
On the other, when a douche feels they need the heightened pretense, when they write to feel superior, to alienate and build the glittering veneer, then they become a Dolly Parton—all bust and no balls.
With a glass of red and the right frame of mind, Rose’s shit is the shit. And the shape my work often takes (and the indulgent state I sometimes like to find myself). While Brandon’s writing smacks of fresh modernity, of cool crass “I’m badass without even trying,” which, of course, he is trying (and so are all of you. Just not I). There’s no question Brandon is a quicker, punchier writer. But Rose’s passion and emotion (and fluff) is, in dosage, delicious. (Yes, I used delicious.)
 Let’s all crack a bottle of merlot, hold hands, and quit pissing on each other with our (naturally) extra large peens.

And clearly I am a virgin to this site and don’t know how to post a fucking comment. Sorry about the duplicates. Thought I erased the triple-spaced lalala.

holy hell six parentheses and conversation with myself. and done.

HOLY SHIT FUCK YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Hey, you stole my username…

But if you start doing kitten videos what the fuck will I write about when I’m feeling totally uninspired?

that’s what I wanted to say!

be a scientist and minor in English. sorry, your BA in literature doesn’t even qualify you to hold doors for a living…should have tried hospitality mgmt.

translators and commenters, the creators of shopping lists, the scribblers of notes, the keepers of journals, the typers of emails, generally anyone who can retain any abstract idea and hold a pen or press a key … which would happen to include koko the gorilla, i think

True. The lady doth protest too much.

True. The lady doth protest too much.

“In my humble and unqualified opinion, the mark of a good, talented, fine
writer (with all this business about “one who writes” left off) is not
the distinction or the inaccessibility of their thoughts, but rather the
outrageous normality of their thoughts and their capability to put
those thoughts to page.”

And you just did that, bravo. I wholeheartedly agree. I admire writers who make me say to myself, “Why the hell did I not think of writing that?”

PAGE VIEWS

You’re not alone. That other article made me feel bad about being an EFL instruction materials writer, even though I work my ass off every single weekday, trying to come up with creative ways to make adult learners comprehend the differences between gerunds and participles (among other grammar rules) without boring their brains out. But at the end of the day, I love my job and I’m good at it. I do wish I were writing the next Pulitzer-prize winning novel but that doesn’t mean I don’t deserve to be called a writer. Like a previous commenter said, it’s a job, an occupation, not some elusive title that only the elite can carry.

Then this is just a terrible response to the original post.  If your idea of the premise is true…this post totally changes the subject.

Then this is just a terrible response to the original post.  If your idea of the premise is true…this post totally changes the subject.

But the author does so, while saying essentially, “If that other definition of ‘writer’ wins, I’d rather not be called a writer.”
In the end, the author wants to define ‘writer’ his way, and then be considered one.

Isn’t it about time for the next Douglas Lain article? Please?

“You don’t have to believe me.  And why should you?  I’ll admit it: I’ve always got my fingers crossed behind my back.”

Even your comments are mind-numbingly stupid and irritating. 

Oh, and a writer knows that “commentors” is not a word. Even “someone who writes” know how to spellcheck.  

lol

I would find this more amusing if it weren’t so goddamn true

This post kicks ass. If you write something knowing that most people won’t get it, you’ve fucked up as a writer, period. Writing for that small subset of the population with lit degrees is just a wank and anyone who considers themselves a “writer” should struggle against the urge to sit around and stroke themselves off in front of an audience.

Yeah but there is the implicit whiff of Pot calling the Kettle something, in this article, plus  the drawback that it was written in haste (obviously; as was Eliot’s) and therefore  self-subverting. And, yeah: most of the  examples BSG gives of “writers” are actually Hacks and there has to be a way to distinguish between “The Sound and the Fury” and “the small print on the back of your Colgate”.  Likewise, is it really phony, elitist or futile to aspire towards Art and not Colgate?  Because, call me an elitist, but glorified Gmail chats/ diary entries/ postcards aren’t Writing, they are writing, and while I’d pay 20 bucks for a few hundred pages of Writing, I wouldn’t pay a fucking nickle for x-pages of glorified typing. 

Writer battle! Everyone to the thunderdome. I liked Eliot’s piece because it romanticized writing. I like Wallace Stegner’s writing because it glorifies and uplifts the mundane, the everyday. I like Noam Chomsky and Andrew Bacevich because they write about non-fictional, real world shit that impacts millions and billions of lives. I like Gawker authors Jim Newell and Hamilton Nolan because they’re fucking hilarious. I like Wonkette for the same reason. I like this because its pragmatic and problematizes the largely fictional, ‘constructed’, and mistaken notion that writing is some fantastical journey into the innermost realms of creativity and human experience. I don’t think I have to pick a side here.

thank you, thank you, thank you.

i have never before audibly  exclaimed “fuck yeah” while reading something. damn.

there’s something weird to me about writers who only write about writing. it’s like singers who only sing about singing (ie kimya dawson — every song on “remember that i love you” has her mentioning how she loves to sing, and how her friends all sing, but what did she sing about before she was a “singer?” that’s too meta for me.) 

everyone writes. like, everyone puts words on paper or the computer if they are literate and have access to these materials. it’s kind of a necessity. if you’re talking about writing as a career or talent or whatever, then use words like “author” or “poet” or “blogger” or “journalist” or “playwright” or “screenwriter” or “copy-writer.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rdgBKGyoRs

This article is stupid. The general argument made is the stuff of freshman year writing workshops. Also, a hyphen is used to form a compound adjective from two simple adjectives. An adverb modifying an adjective, e.g. “tangentially-insane,” never takes a hyphen.