What Writers Are

Bits and parts of this post have been bubbling up for a while, driven by by this twitter comment and that article, some of them talking about what writers should be and some questioning what writers do. A few of those comments are exasperating, a lot have me sympathising with people, and one has been straight up nonsense of a rather dangerous sort. I don't want to give any more publicity to that particular tweet than has already been given, but I do want to vent about this all.

As far as I'm concerned, a writer is simply someone who sees things that they want to write about, then goes and does it. That's all. No education, no particular background needed. Just being interested and following through.

Now, very few people want to be just a writer. Most of us want to be good writers. We want to be known, enjoyed and admired. That's what all of the advice is about. This might be pedantic, but we know how to be writers. Its being good writers we worry about. That's why we worry about where we come from, what we know, what people want, how much we have to work, and so on and on. Now, I may not be a good writer myself yet, but I feel like I do know a bit about what makes one.

The answer to that is that what makes each writer good (personally and all that) starts with the whole see things and write about them idea. It's basically seeing things well and writing about them well. Now, yes, that is a somewhat glib answer, but I think its sensible to start with the actual answer, no matter how simple it may be or how many other questions it might demand.

In this case it does prompt a "Well, how do you those things well?". And that's part natural gift and a huge amount more parts practice. And also maybe a "What things? Where do they come from?" And the answer to that is unique to each writer.

Tolkien was a professor who leaned heavily on his academic learning and interests. David Gemmell was expelled from school and leaned on his formative upbringing in a rough area. Their approaches there are opposite ends of the spectrum and both are among the titans of the fantasy genre. Nor did their different backgrounds stop them from having influences in common, such as their faith and interest in the Anglo-Saxons. And a look around the pantheon's greats reveals no end of different backgrounds, professions, philosophies and influences. Those differences grow ever greater - I can point you to fantasies inspired by everything from Dragon Age to modern corporate structure - yet are all linked together by a set of common reference points.

As for how we write, when we write - there's the same variety. Some swear by writing every day. Some don't. Some carve out a time for a writing state of mind even when in situations most find intensely stressful; some can't and let it rest and have a fallow period; I think a few authors seem to actively thrive on that. None of those things are superior to one another as long as we end up happy and proud of our work. 

Now, yes, some things do seem to be advantageous. I imagine a survey of every fantasy author ever would find that a disproportionate number of them have professional careers that involve some form of writing. I'd also imagine that most of writers can, if not possessed in some formal education in writing, point to people and books that helped provide that education and knowing good people is a big advantage. And that's without touching on the huge and depressing topic of how race, gender, and socio-economic circumstances will affect the opportunities and advice people are given. I would be insulting people's intelligence and experience if I claimed otherwise.

Also, yes, a writer's work ethic will be pretty central to their success. It guarantees little but without it, writers don't even usually get a lottery ticket. Rejecting the mentally macho advice promoting self-immolation in the name of writing is only sane; nobody should go too far the other direction. Not that I've seen anyone do so.

But these are not "things I must be" or "things I must do". They're routes. Imagine a TV show where they took a bunch of novice climbers and started training them for Everest, one mountain at a time, assigning routes up each mountain at random - would you judge which climbers would actually make Everest based on how easy or hard their first random route is? I hope not. When it comes to being a good writer, degrees and life circumstances are only the first mountain, if that.

I really hope that anyone reading this far is going "Well, duh". Or didn't even bother. That this article is me venting about a few odd comments and is pointless. That would mean life is as it should be. But I rather suspect it isn't for too many. And while I doubt they'll see this article and get the boost I hope they would, it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

Writing a full book is difficult enough without building up the demons of doubt and prescription. And writing itself is simple (if not always easy), and writing well is about doing a simple thing well.

And anybody trying to do tell you otherwise is probably wrong.