A reviewer noted that whoever wrote the story he/she was reviewing "is an author, not a writer. There's a difference."
What IS the difference? Is one good and one bad?
A reviewer noted that whoever wrote the story he/she was reviewing "is an author, not a writer. There's a difference."
What IS the difference? Is one good and one bad?
Etymologically, author comes from the same root as authority and authoritative, whereas writer comes from the physical act. So someone who churns out nonsense can call themselves a writer but they can't call themselves an author.
But that's a guess. When writing 'experts' are involved, all common sense is defenestrated.
AJ
Etymologically, author comes from the same root as authority and authoritative, whereas writer comes from the physical act. So someone who churns out nonsense can call themselves a writer but they can't call themselves an author.
Someone who churns out nonsense on a keyboard would be a typist, not a writer.
So an author is the creator of an original work, be it written or typed, whilst one who does not create an original work is a scribe.
Someone who churns out nonsense on a keyboard would be a typist, not a writer.
Nonsense was a poor choice of word. I was thinking of eg someone producing an election manifesto, full of vacuous soundbites that are impossible to achieve because they're contradictory.
AJ
Nonsense was a poor choice of word.
Does a poor word choice turn you into a bad author or a bad writer?
Does a poor word choice turn you into a bad author or a bad writer?
I was already a bad author and writer. :)
AJ
So an author is the creator of an original work
The difference between author and writer is more than the writing being an original work. An article in a newspaper is an original work created by a reporter, but I wouldn't define the reporter as an author. A trip report written by an employee returning from a business trip is an original work, but I wouldn't define the employee as an author, nor as a writer.
My personal differentiation between writer and author has to do with creativity and the purpose of the writing. To me:
Writers write to convey factual information to the reader. While the purpose is to convey the information, the writing style can be creative. Using a creative writing style does not make a writer an author.
Authors bring creativity to the content of their writing and their writing is presented as a story, factual or fictional, and the purpose is usually to entertain the reader. An author's factual writing could be something like a biography where the factual information is presented as the story of someone's life. The creativity that goes into fictional stories like those posted to SOL doesn't require explanation.
but I wouldn't define the reporter as an author.
You can just as easily say, "Who authored that article?" as "Who wrote that article?"
You can just as easily say
Yes that is true.
You can also say, "He died." and "He was murdered." To me, there is a significant difference between dying and being murdered.
You can also say, "He died." and He was murdered." To me, there is a significant difference between dying and being murdered.
There IS a legal difference. I once attended a seminar on libel, and the libel lawyer conducting the seminar said "murder is a legal allegation" and is best avoided unless a person has been charged with murder. the best course, he said, is to write precisely what happened instead of using the word "murder." Say the person was beaten to death, or drawn and quartered, or pushed off a cliff. "Using murder when there is no legal charge of murder can cost you a lot of money."
there is a significant difference between dying and being murdered.
You have to be religious to believe it makes a difference for the dead.
You have to be religious to believe it makes a difference for the dead.
Why? Do you get celestial brownie points for being murdered?
AJ
Why? Do you get celestial brownie points for being murdered?
No, but if you believe in an after-life, the deceased would have the opportunity to be pissed off over being murdered.
Why? Do you get celestial brownie points for being murdered?
Depends on the religion but as an agnostic, you get bupkis in any case.
Do you get celestial brownie points for being murdered?
Thinking about it, being murdered is a bad way to go. If you've led a sinful life, being murdered removes the opportunity of deathbed repentance and last-minute salvation.
On the other hand, committing murder could be good if you want lots of virgins in the afterlife.
AJ
On the other hand, committing murder could be good if you want lots of virgins in the afterlife.
Until you discover the youngest virgin allocated to you is in her seventies...
Until you discover the youngest virgin allocated to you is in her seventies...
Or you run into this:
I can see it now: Osama bin Laden goes up to the gates of Heaven where George Washington comes out, says, "How dare you defile what I have created," and starts whaling on his ass, then 70 other members of the Continental Congress come out and start kicking the shit out of him. Osama will say, "Hey, wait! Where are my virgins?" "71 *Virginians*, you asshole!" Or maybe it's 71 Virgils going, "You got a purty mouth!" "Jesus Christ! I put in a call to Jesus Christ!" And St. Peter goes, "Hey Jesus, did you call a cab? Come here!"
Robin Williams.
Or this: you discover the youngest virgin allocated to you is in his seventies..
"He died." and "He was murdered." To me, there is a significant difference between dying and being murdered.
True, but you can't be murdered without dying.
You can even be killed (by a person) without it being murder.
There is Justifiable Homicide (self defense, though technically, in nearly all US jurisdictions, defense of another is also covered) In some jurisdictions assisted suicide, Manslaughter (no intent to kill, but you did something really dangerous either recklessly or negligently and someone died as a result.)
Murder as a legal/criminal concept specifically requires an intent to kill.
I looked for it in Wikipedia and found (in the "Writer" entry):
The term writer is often used as a synonym of author, although the latter term has a somewhat broader meaning and is used to convey legal responsibility for a piece of writing, even if its composition is anonymous, unknown or collaborative.
And this in the "Author" entry:
Michel Foucault argues in his essay "What is an author?" (1969) that all authors are writers, but not all writers are authors. He states that "a private letter may have a signatory—it does not have an author".
Methinks you have to ask the reviewer where he sees the differerence.
HM.
Michel Foucault argues in his essay "What is an author?" (1969) that all authors are writers, but not all writers are authors. He states that "a private letter may have a signatory—it does not have an author
This is undeniable, and it is just as clearly not what the original quote meant.
What IS the difference? Is one good and one bad?
I suspect in that instance the reviewer is using it to differentiate the quality of the work, the inference being that the 'author' produces better work than the 'writer'. Personally, I believe that both could produce good technical quality, so the difference, to me, is small. Here at SOL, we have another category (again, in my opinion) - storyteller. They don't seem to care much for grammar, spelling, etc - they just have ideas they want to share. Sadly, sometimes the lack of any technical expertise really hurts the story, where both the author and the writer (I suspect) would take more care with the 'nuts and bolts'. At least, that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.
I used to do a little ad writing and such. To me, that is being a writer. When I write fiction for my own reasons even if I monetize it I am then an author.
When I was at school I was taught the difference between an author and a writer is:
An author - the person who provides the intellectual component of the document.
as against,
A writer - the person who writes a document on the paper.
A scribe - the person paid to write a document for a person who can't write, they also read documents for people who can't read.
However, over the years the term scribe has dropped from general usage due to the rising levels of literacy, while the terms author and writer have become almost synonymous with each other because most authors now write their own material and because of the use of electronic text documents.
A common example of the difference between and author and a writer during the mid to late 20th century is a boss dictating a letter to his secretary to prepare for his signature. The boss is the author while the secretary is the writer. Today many bosses type their own letters, but not all.
Ghost writers are people who write documents based on the concepts provided by another, usually stories. Many secretaries used to write documents as ghost writers when their boss told them to write a reply based on only a concept or two and leave the whole wording up to the secretary.
One weird oddity that has started recently is ghost authors where a famous person gives their name to a story written by another person who did the writing.
One weird oddity that has started recently is ghost authors where a famous person gives their name to a story written by another person who did the writing.
That's pretty much everything by James Patterson. He's at least started adding the names of the person who took his basic idea and turned into published material.
What's interesting is when you have someone established as an author in his own rights that ends up doing something like that for another author, or in the universe that the other author started.
Another real life example of the OP, is Game of thrones. Written by the author G.R.R Martin with the final season written by the writers Weiss and Benioff, whereas the previous seasons the plots were written by W&B based on Martins novels. For the last one W&B pretty much made it up by themselves and it pretty much shows....
This has nothing to do with the difference between Author and Writer, they are just not in the same league as G.R.R. Martin.
You – and others here – seem to see a quality difference between an Author and a mere Writer. When did this happen?
Back then when the "Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America" were founded, they didn't call themselves "Authors", they were Science Fiction Writers.
To me "Author" is mainly a legal term covering writers of Non-fiction, Prose, Poetry, Screen Plays, Lyrics and Composers for Copyright issues.
The terms Author and Writer are not congruent, but for the overlapping areas they are interchangeable.
Just my €.02
HM.
To me "Author" is mainly a legal term covering writers of Non-fiction, Prose, Poetry, Screen Plays, Lyrics and Composers for Copyright issues.
To me, that statement doesn't make sense. Surely an "Author" is mainly a legal term covering writers of 'fiction'? Isn't a writer of 'Non-fiction' a writer?
This "quality difference" you see, is it not one of regional bias rather than literary?
And to further state that something is not "congruent" but yet "interchangeble" is akin to replying to the question "Do you wish a tea or a coffee?" with "Yes please."
Just my tuppence.
To me, that statement doesn't make sense. Surely an "Author" is mainly a legal term covering writers of 'fiction'? Isn't a writer of 'Non-fiction' a writer?
Non-fiction is covered by copyright too, at least to some extent. And copyright law uses the term author for both. Heck, it uses the term author for paintings and photographs.
And to further state that something is not "congruent" but yet "interchangeble" is akin to replying to the question "Do you wish a tea or a coffee?" with "Yes please."
You obviously didn't get what I wrote, now I enhanced the part you overlooked:
The terms Author and Writer are not congruent, but for the overlapping areas they are interchangeable.
I used overlap here for the intersection of the two sets "Author" and "Writer".
HM.
Just my €.02
SOL is in Canada. That should be $(C)0.02. Hmm, what's the exchange rate between Euros and Canadian Dollars?
This has nothing to do with the difference between Author and Writer, they are just not in the same league as G.R.R. Martin.
Pixy:
For the last one W&B pretty much made it up by themselves and it pretty much shows....
I think Pixy's comment means Writers aren't in the same league as Authors when it comes to generating a creative story.
I did understand his comment the same way you did.
I think Pixy's comment means Writers aren't in the same league as Authors when it comes to generating a creative story.
But W&B are authors as is G.R.R.Martin, just not in the same league.
However applying Dean Wesley Smith's definition, maybe G.R.R. Martin is no longer a writer (how long is it now that he last published any work?).
BTW, I like DWS's definition.
HM.
BTW, I like DWS's definition.
I won't dispute the definition, however I do believe the is more to being a author than having written something and focusing on your past accomplishments. DWS's definition does not take that something into account.
When I googled it, most of the places I found were from vanity sites or sites that want you to pay them to help you publish. They were filled with bullshit so I guess it's a bullshit question to ask the difference.
One actually said an author gives a shit while a writer doesn't. That is, the author doesn't care if it sells. Only that he's true to his novel. While a writer follows the trends to sell as many as possible. True bullshit.
However, I found one interesting take from Dean Wesley Smith. He wrote "The New World of Publishing" and a ton of novels. Anyway, this is his take:
— A Writer is a person who writes.
— An Author is a person who has written.
Sounds like the same almost, doesn't it? Nope. Those two are very, very far apart in reality and only cross in one main way: Writers are Authors as well, but Authors are seldom Writers.
For example: I am the Author of two original Men in Black novels. They took me about three weeks each to write. And I moved on and have written seventy or eighty novels since. And I am still writing all the time. But I am the AUTHOR of those two books.
If I had stopped writing new work after I finished those two novels, I would still be the Author of those two novels. But I would no longer be a Writer.
Let me put it this way:
— A Writer is always focused on the story they are writing at the moment, always focused on the story coming next to write.
— A Writer is always focused on the future.
— An Author is always focused on what they have written.
— An Author is always focused into the past.
But, again, he's selling to those who want to self-publish. But it's an interesting take. You're a writer while writing the novel. Once it's done, you are the author of it and become the writer of the next one.
One actually said an author gives a shit while a writer doesn't. That is, the author doesn't care if it sells. Only that he's true to his novel. While a writer follows the trends to sell as many as possible. True bullshit.
I think I agree with the DWS quote you made. The reason I highlighted what you put is because of something I read from Robert Heinlein. And I'm going to have to paraphrase it as best my memory let's me - that book is somewhere in a bin in a storage unit - maybe.
If you're writing pay copy, you have to pay attention to what your audience wants. You can throw some other concepts in there if you can sneak them by your editor and publisher, but the gist of it was you can't put War & Peace into a book that's written for teenage males. If you can hook them on the books written for the younger audience, when they get older, they'll buy the books you write for the older audience. But if you only write for the older audience, don't complain when you don't sell to younger - and vice-versa.