I'M A WrITEr

[ZyklonB]

Ahh, that clears things up. *shines his reviewer badge*

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ZyklonB

Ahh, that clears things up. *shines his reviewer badge*

Wear it proudly.

[Saya]

I once won an award in grade seven for a Remembrance Day poetry contest in my school district, but the teacher who told me admitted it had a lot to do that most other submissions were thinly disguised regurgitations of Flander's Fields.

[Man In Room 5]

I've been published in real paper and ink magazines. I wrote music reviews for a magazine. It was great because in conversations I would slam some band like Oasis and someone would always say, "What are you, a rock critic?" And I would answer, "Well, as a matter of fact...." Besides, I got all sorts of free CDs, magazines and concert tickets. I also wrote an article on how modern pagans are overlooking a bunch of historical evidence in order to incorporate the Irish Ogham alphabet into their religion. Sadly, the article that probably gets the most attention is something I wrote for free about my penis.

http://www.bmezine.com/pierce/09-mal.../apaapath.html

[ZyklonB]

I read that before! What a coincidence.

-And I am being serious here.

EDIT: stupid typo.

[Saya]

I just remembered I did get a poem in a book after grade seven that highschool I went to had to close down (whats that poisonous chemical that is found in old paint? We had that and the building was demolished afterwards) so everyone could contribute a poem, story or drawing and the whole school printed a book that everyone in the community could buy. I wasn't going to submit anything but the lady who picked me to win the contest earlier in the year pressed me about it, and you could see her repress her disappointment and disgust when I passed in what I wrote. I thought it was decent at the time, but I cringe knowing that there are hundreds of copies of a book in which there is a stupid stupid stupid poem with my real name attached to it.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Man In Room 5

I've been published in real paper and ink magazines. I wrote music reviews for a magazine. It was great because in conversations I would slam some band like Oasis

Fuck yeah. They're way overrated.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by Saya

I just remembered I did get a poem in a book after grade seven that highschool I went to had to close down (whats that poisonous chemical that is found in old paint? We had that and the building was demolished afterwards) so everyone could contribute a poem, story or drawing and the whole school printed a book that everyone in the community could buy. I wasn't going to submit anything but the lady who picked me to win the contest earlier in the year pressed me about it, and you could see her repress her disappointment and disgust when I passed in what I wrote. I thought it was decent at the time, but I cringe knowing that there are hundreds of copies of a book in which there is a stupid stupid stupid poem with my real name attached to it.

Neither your childhood poem or Man In Room 5's review of dicks he's ogled count for what we're talking about. Besides, Neither of you have the gall to claim to be writers so your modesty will spare you a firm lashing.

We're more interested in discrediting the likes of HumanePain and Despanan. Who will claim that these talents are their careers but have absolutely nothing to show for it. Who prance around saying "I'm a writer!" "I'm an actor! I have groupies". They are the targets of this thread's venom.

Your minor indulgences in writing are a hundred times more honorable than their empty claims. They are a disgrace to people who truly can claim the arts as their calling.

[ZyklonB]

Man in Room 5's review of his piercing was an awesome read, and a good laugh as well. I liked it =D Don't ask why I happened to come across it before.

(hopes no one notices he hasn't come out of the closet yet.)

[jack_the_knife]

I believe that If you haven't actually written something that has been printed on paper in a respected literature magazine, you don't have the right to actually call yourself a writer. Until you've accomplished that, you're an aspiring writer. Same goes for art. If you haven't been asked to display your work at a gallery or an art show, then you're not an artist. Posting things on the internet, anyone can do. Getting recognition from some insignificant people on the internet, anyone can do. Getting recognition in the real world is a completely different kettle of fish...

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by jack_the_knife

I believe that If you haven't actually written something that has been printed on paper in a respected literature magazine, you don't have the right to actually call yourself a writer. Until you've accomplished that, you're an aspiring writer. Same goes for art. If you haven't been asked to display your work at a gallery or an art show, then you're not an artist. Posting things on the internet, anyone can do. Getting recognition from some insignificant people on the internet, anyone can do. Getting recognition in the real world is a completely different kettle of fish...

A completely different kettle of fish which anyone can do. Let's face it: according to your logic, there is no such thing as folk art or folk literature. You're just blaming the internet for a real world phenomenon: no matter what you do, someone will like it and someone won't. If anything designates what is or isn't art or literature, it must be quality and intention. Prestige is merely an acknowledgement of said quality, but is in no way concrete proof of it. If it wasn't art until Mr. Snootypants came up and said "I like this!", then what's changed in it? This is completely unrelated to quality, as Mr. Snootypants merely calls whatever he likes "Great". If he doesn't like a sandwich is it no longer a sandwich? After all, cooking is an art.

[jack_the_knife]

Okay, granted. But this brings up the problem: How do you tell what's good and what's not.
And then we move on: How do you define a writer and an artist.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by jack_the_knife

Okay, granted. But this brings up the problem: How do you tell what's good and what's not.

Opinion. While critics can be valuable sources of opinions, many people tend to develop their own. The amount of formerly-obscure information (old and new) poured onto the internet is huge, and I think having such easy access to all this stuff is a gift.

And then we move on: How do you define a writer and an artist.

I'd say the fields are very different in a way. 'Art' seems to be a term that covers just about anything, particularly things done for self-expression or passion. Art doesn't have to be coherent or appealing. Writing, while it is itself an art, tends to-for obvious reasons-follow stricter rules. First, to be a writer, you must first know how to write in whatever language you're writing in. General Art, on the other hand, requires no such direct skill.
To me, the only thing that can really make a writer not a writer is... well... allow me to make up an example:
Sharrie Sue's story uv erotik advintir chaptr 1:
hay der said sharie sue i am mad cuz my bf left me last nite wana fuk ya said jonny az he unbukeld hiz belt nd fcked hir

At that point, it becomes art.

[jack_the_knife]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Opinion. While critics can be valuable sources of opinions, many people tend to develop their own. The amount of formerly-obscure information (old and new) poured onto the internet is huge, and I think having such easy access to all this stuff is a gift.

This is an opinion, not a measure of quality...

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I'd say the fields are very different in a way. 'Art' seems to be a term that covers just about anything, particularly things done for self-expression or passion. Art doesn't have to be coherent or appealing. Writing, while it is itself an art, tends to-for obvious reasons-follow stricter rules. First, to be a writer, you must first know how to write in whatever language you're writing in. General Art, on the other hand, requires no such direct skill.
To me, the only thing that can really make a writer not a writer is... well... allow me to make up an example:
Sharrie Sue's story uv erotik advintir chaptr 1:
hay der said sharie sue i am mad cuz my bf left me last nite wana fuk ya said jonny az he unbukeld hiz belt nd fcked hir

At that point, it becomes art.

This, again is an opinion.

So, what you're basically implying, is that there is no quality, only common opinion?
And through common opinion, we can decide what is quality work and what is utter tripe?
Thus, there is no good or bad work because nothing exists that everyone can appreciate?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by jack_the_knife

This is an opinion, not a measure of quality...

O rly?

This, again is an opinion.

So, what you're basically implying, is that there is no quality, only common opinion?

If that's what I'm implying, I must have said something wrong.

And through common opinion, we can decide what is quality work and what is utter tripe?

Absolutely not.

Thus, there is no good or bad work because nothing exists that everyone can appreciate?

Si. If 100 people like Michelangelo, and 30 think his work is garbage, then 100 people like him, and 30 don't. His skill, as far as I'm concerned, is not subjective. The overall value of his work could be, though.

[jack_the_knife]

Fuck it, I'm going to believe that there is no quality, only opinion...

[Man In Room 5]

Originally Posted by jack_the_knife

Fuck it, I'm going to believe that there is no quality, only opinion...

The problem is there is a standard of quality but it's poorly defined around the edges and we are fools if we think a discussion on Gnet is going to bring the blurry edges into sharper focus. We all know some books are classics such as the Odyssey, Dracula, the poetry of Keats, and works of Shakespeare but where do we draw the line and why? It's never been answered and never will be.

[jack_the_knife]

Originally Posted by Man In Room 5

The problem is there is a standard of quality but it's poorly defined around the edges and we are fools if we think a discussion on Gnet is going to bring the blurry edges into sharper focus. We all know some books are classics such as the Odyssey, Dracula, the poetry of Keats, and works of Shakespeare but where do we draw the line and why? It's never been answered and never will be.

That's probably true, but those books are only classics due to popular opinion. If no-one had liked them, they would have been dismissed along with other disasters. I suppose only time can tell what's good and what's not.

[Sir. Helpmann]

So far the examples given of people who are "published" all related to third-rate websites that no one knows nor cares about.

If you haven't been published in paper, if no one knows your work in the world of literature stop pretending to be a writer. Anyone can get a review published on a website, you need only look at amazon to see vast hoards of reviews written by like-minded people - each with an opinion to share, each written done for no money and respected by no one worthwhile.

If you're not being paid for writing then you're not a writer. Simply having a review hosted on some obscure little website is the same as having a Deviant Art account - it does not make you an artist.

[Alarica]

Writing reviews and articles for magazines and web sites, I thought was classed as journalism? So are there any members of this site, other than Man in room 5, who call themselves writers and can prove they are worthy of the title? Or has he not had anything other than articles/reviews published either?

[Necrophagist]

I am!

Read this:

And den da vampyre sucked da blood ov his beluvid, his fangz sinking into her Pale flesh, which resembled a mixture between off-milk, and a dead cat. Da vampyre wuz at a lossss at y his beluvid tastedd lyk off-milk and a dead kat, and so ***** her wid a kNiFE!!!!!

TA DA!!!

[Man In Room 5]

Originally Posted by Alarica

Writing reviews and articles for magazines and web sites, I thought was classed as journalism?

Depends on how you define journalism. To me journalism stands closer to the work of a reporter than the work of a writer. I've always seen journalists as people out on the field doing research and interviews and reporting on current events. I don't really do that. I write mainly non-fiction but it's more like historical articles, or literary criticism. Most of my research is done by reading, which is why I'm at my desk all day and on and off line so much.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by Man In Room 5

Depends on how you define journalism. To me journalism stands closer to the work of a reporter than the work of a writer. I've always seen journalists as people out on the field doing research and interviews and reporting on current events. I don't really do that. I write mainly non-fiction but it's more like historical articles, or literary criticism. Most of my research is done by reading, which is why I'm at my desk all day and on and off line so much.

No. Literary criticism is journalism. So is article writing. Writing reviews and all that is journalism. Things that have to do with the real world and real people with nothing to do with fictional people or events. If you were to write a short story for a magazine you'd be a writer. Being a writer could also entail works of poetry or being novelist.

But...

If you don't get paid for it you aren't a journalist. If you don't get paid for something or make your living off of it, don't claim to other people that it is your profession. That's just misleading and lame. It comes off as you're using the title because you think it will make you look interesting to others.

[Baron Xavier]

I would like to know if any writers here actually Write on paper? I know modern day "writing" is considered via email. But I love the old art of handwriten letters...its a thing of the past I know.

I found this wonderful Artist on etsy selling awesome dark victorian stationary. Give it a look..
http://www.etsy.com/shop/the1900letter

[Peter Jackal]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Originally Posted by Helpmann
The idea is terrible. Everyone on this forum that comes up with ideas for "novels", "comics" or "screenplays" will never get it done.

Want to know why?

Because they're all teenagers who don't understand how the fuck the world works.

Interesting thread....

Not sure that I have an opinion on what constitutes being a writer.

HOWEVER, my book, The Shadow of Death is published and available on Amazon.

I'm not a teenager and I do understand how the world works (somewhat) and that enables me to say with confidence that however you pursue your craft, writing a commercial product fit for publication is fucking difficult.

Imagine cutting out a piece of your soul. Think of the time, sacrifice and pain it will cost. Feel the agony of being told by people whose opinions really count, that those last two years of blood & sweat were for nothing, because what you've created by wringing out the screaming, grey fat of your brain cells isn't fit to print.

Picture yourself dragging yourself up after that and starting again. Torturing your creative self by binding it into shapes demanded by people who don't give a damn about you, or the dreams that haunt the private places of your deepest self.

Why would you do that? That's not a hobby.

You'll only do it because for some reason, you have no choice.

Does this help the discussion?