During
today's first Author Study session, I think I have asked myself far more
questions on my ability to write than I possibly ever have done before. That's
not to say that I don't question it, I'm not sure if there's really a writer
who doesn't. I was asked earlier "who do I write for?”, and whilst I have
an answer so complex that it requires a degree in brain surgery, down to the
bare bones of it; me. It will always be for me.
I
think the real question is 'what defines you to a deemed as a true writer?'.
After all, we all write, don't we? I understand that, for me at least, I can
lock-in to raw emotions and portray it as how a character feels, but I'm not
sure that it’s really enough on its own.
Everyone
can ideally be considered a writer in an ideal world, but then again, what is a
'writer', and is having your heart in the right place enough? If we look at
someone like Emily Dickinson, we learn that her work was written for her own
pleasure; she was her own audience, in a way. Does that information make her any
less important in the history of authors than that of, say, Jane Austen?
Granted, they were alive at slightly
different times, and had different audiences, but we wouldn't be studying
Dickinson if she wasn't as important, right?
It
just goes to show that what may not appear an important factor to you, means
the world to someone else. Now’s here’s some images of Austen’s legacy (ah, Winchester):
I find it interesting that you cut straight to the core point, writing is for you. I also like that you even redefine the question, whereas I just went even deeper. I agree these personal questions do get more complex the closer you consider them ('when did you become a writer, well it depends what defines a writer....) Even if you're writing for yourself, like for improvement, you could also argue that writing for yourself is experience which will benefit any future audience. Although I guess who you are writing for depends heavily on what it is you are writing.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. If I'm honest, I was/am a little bit worried that I missed the point and didn't anser the question by asking too many of my own.
ReplyDeleteThe way I've always judged the definition of a writer is that anyone can be one, but if you're truly passionate about writing then I feel you should strive to be defined as a published author. To me that seems as though you're in another league. To have editors and an agent all caring about your writing while its in the development stage just goes to show that your writing stands out for whatever reason - and so for that reason I see that what Atwood describes as the status of a writer is in my opinion the status of an author.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the contrast between 'writer' and 'author' has come up a few times as people consider what it is to be a writer, of any description. Perhaps we need to discuss this further... To start with questions seems, to me, quite natural Sarah but, yes, as you continue, the hope is that you will draw some conclusions too.
ReplyDelete